F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JUN 27 1997
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
Case No. 96-4160
v.
(D.C. 96-CR-150)
VICTOR MANUEL PRIETO-LOERA, (District of Utah)
aka Manuel Torres-Loera, aka Victor
Lugo, aka Victor Lua,
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before ANDERSON, HENRY, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has unanimously
determined that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Defendant Victor Prieto-Loera appeals a 57-month sentence imposed after a
plea of guilty to one count of unlawful re-entry by a deported alien, in violation
of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Mr. Prieto-Loera’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in her opinion, there are no
meritorious grounds for appeal. This court ordered Mr. Prieto-Loera to respond
to counsel’s Anders brief on or before March 7, 1997, and to date, he has failed to
do so.
We have engaged in a thorough search of the record and are convinced that
Mr. Prieto-Loera’s counsel has done the same. We agree with counsel that there
are no meritorious grounds for appeal. According to counsel, Mr. Prieto-Loera
“feels that 57 months is too long of a sentence for the type of crime he
committed.” Aplt.’s Br. at 2. Apparently, Congress and the Sentencing
Commission feel otherwise; Mr. Prieto-Loera’s 57-month sentence is within the
guideline range for his offense level and criminal history category. Accordingly,
we GRANT counsel leave to withdraw, and DISMISS the appeal. See Penson v.
Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). The mandate shall issue forthwith.
Entered for the Court,
Robert H. Henry
Circuit Judge
2