F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MAR 17 1999
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 98-4143
(D.C. No. 98-CR-187-C)
EDMUNDO JAVIER-MARQUEZ, (D. Utah)
also known as Adan Marquez-Reyna,
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before ANDERSON, KELLY, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). Therefore, the
case is ordered submitted without oral argument.
Defendant Edmundo Javier-Marquez pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after
deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and was sentenced to forty-six
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
months’ imprisonment. Defendant’s counsel has filed an Anders brief (Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967)), and defendant has filed a pro se letter
contending the district court erred in imposing his sentence.
We have examined the record on appeal and conclude the district court
properly sentenced defendant. The court imposed a base offense level of eight,
plus a sixteen-level enhancement for defendant’s reentry after he was deported
following an aggravated felony conviction (a Utah state conviction for possession
with intent to distribute a controlled substance). U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(a) & (b)(1)(A).
The court granted a three-level downward adjustment for acceptance of
responsibility. U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. Based on defendant’s total offense level and
his criminal history category of III, the guideline range was forty-six to fifty-
seven months. The district court imposed a sentence at the bottom of the range.
In his pro se letter, defendant contends the district court considered two
prior crimes which were committed by his brother. The record reveals defendant
acknowledged at sentencing that neither of the crimes committed by his brother
resulted in criminal history points or affected his criminal history category or
guideline range. This argument is without merit.
Defendant also asserts the court enhanced his sentence for a felony drug
conviction to which he pleaded guilty when he was in fact innocent. A sentencing
court cannot consider a collateral attack on a prior conviction, with the exception
-2-
of a collateral attack based on complete denial of counsel. See United States v.
Simpson , 94 F.3d 1373, 1381 (10th Cir. 1996). Defendant’s argument is based
solely on his claim of factual innocence. He was represented by counsel when he
entered a plea of guilty to the crime. The district court could not disregard the
conviction and did not err in relying on it to enhance defendant’s sentence.
AFFIRMED. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. The mandate
shall issue forthwith.
Entered for the Court
Mary Beck Briscoe
Circuit Judge
-3-