
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeremias Nathan ZETINO-RIVERA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 07-4819.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Feb. 21, 2008.
    Decided: Feb. 25, 2008.
    Robert H. Hale, Jr., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Office of the United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Jeremías Nathan Zetino-Rivera pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to one count of using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to, and possessing a firearm in furtherance of, a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2000). The district court sentenced Zetino-Rivera to the statutory minimum of sixty months of imprisonment. ZetinoRivera timely appealed.

On appeal, counsel has filed an Anders brief, in which he states there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questions whether the district court acted unreasonably when it failed to consider the evidence offered by Zetino-Rivera in support of his motion for a variance below the statutory minimum sentence. Zetino-Rivera was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not filed a brief. The Government declined to file a brief. We affirm.

Zetino-Rivera’s sentence was the mandatory minimum sentence. The district court properly recognized that, absent a substantial assistance motion filed by the government pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(e) (West 2000 & Supp.2007), it lacked authority to sentence Zetino-Rivera below the statutory mandatory minimum sentence. See United States v. Allen, 450 F.3d 565, 568-69 (4th Cir.2006).

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Zetino-Rivera’s convietion and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Zetino-Rivera, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Zetino-Rivera requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Zetino-Rivera.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED. 
      
      
         Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
     