F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
APR 15 1999
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
No. 98-2127
v.
(D.C. No. CR 96-563 LH)
(District of New Mexico)
RANDY ALLEN WILLINGER,
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRORBY, EBEL and HENRY, Circuit Judges.
Richard Willinger pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute more
than 100 grams of methamphetamine and aiding and abetting, in violation of 21
U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. In the plea agreement,
the United States agreed that the appropriate base offense level was 35, and that a
*
After examining appellant briefs and the 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) and 10th Cir. R.
34.1(G). 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Order and Judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of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.
3-point reduction for acceptance of responsibility was warranted, resulting in a
base offense level of 32. In addition, the United States agreed that this case
called for a criminal history category between III and V, and that Willinger’s
sentence should not exceed 188 months imprisonment.
At sentencing, the district court noted that Willinger had filed a number of
objections to the presentence report (PSR), and that those had been resolved
between Willinger’s counsel and the United States. Willinger’s attorney
confirmed that the parties had resolved the objections and that the parties had
confirmed the accuracy of the plea agreement with respect to the calculations
noted above. Accordingly, counsel advised the court that no evidentiary hearing
was needed. These statements were made in Willinger’s presence and he
thereafter addressed the court without objecting to his counsel’s statements. The
court then adopted the PSR without taking into consideration certain paragraphs
as agreed by the parties.
On appeal, Willinger’s counsel submits what is essentially an Anders brief,
see Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), informing us of the following
claims Willinger wishes to raise: (1) that he was deprived of due process because
the district court sentenced him without a hearing after he objected to the findings
in the PSR; and (2) that his counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to
inform the court of Willinger’s intent to plead guilty “to the conduct of using
-2-
drugs of a lower grade and amount with his girlfriend . . . at their home and not
for the economic gain conduct alleged at the 4th Street trailer.” Counsel also
informs us that Willinger “concedes the sentence received was not in excess of
the agreed amount in the plea agreement.”
We reject Willinger’s claims. First, because his counsel resolved
objections to the PSR with the government and informed the court that no
evidentiary hearing was needed in light of such resolution, and because Willinger
himself raised no further objections at sentencing, we find his due process claim
devoid of merit. Second, we dismiss Willinger’s ineffective assistance claim,
which should be brought in collateral proceedings rather than on direct appeal.
See United States v. Galloway, 56 F.3d 1239, 1240, 1242 (10th Cir. 1995) (“The
rule in this circuit . . . is that claims of constitutionally ineffective counsel should
be brought on collateral review, in the first petition filed under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255.”).
The district court sentence is AFFIRMED.
The mandate shall issue forthwith.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
David M. Ebel
Circuit Judge
-3-