F IL E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
December 19, 2006
U N IT E D ST A T E S C O U R T O F A PP E A L S
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
T E N T H C IR C U IT Clerk of Court
U N ITED STA TES O F A M ER ICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
No. 06-7016
v.
(D.C. No. 05-CR -52-P)
(E. D. Okla.)
JU LIO CESA R O RTEG A ,
Defendant - Appellant.
O R D E R A N D JU D G M E N T *
Before K E L L Y , M cK A Y , and L U C E R O , Circuit Judges.
Julio Cesar Ortega appeals his conviction for Possession with Intent to
Distribute M ethamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and
841(b)(1)(A)(viii). Ortega’s counsel moves for leave to withdraw in a brief filed
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). W e A FFIR M Ortega’s
conviction, D ISM ISS the appeal, and G R A N T counsel’s motion to withdraw.
On M ay 3, 2005, Oklahoma H ighway Patrol Trooper Cody Hyde stopped
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,
however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 (eff. Dec.
1, 2006) and 10th Cir. R. 32.1 (eff. Jan. 1, 2007).
Ortega and his passenger Fernando Hernandez in Sequoyah County, Oklahoma as
they were driving eastbound on Interstate 40. Hyde initiated the stop because the
vehicle was traveling at 76 miles per hour, six miles above the posted speed limit
of 70 miles per hour. During the stop, Hyde observed that Ortega and Hernandez
exhibited signs of nervousness and provided differing accounts of their travel
plans. Hyde asked Ortega for permission to search the vehicle, and Ortega
consented.
Hyde’s inspection led to the discovery of approximately 815 grams of
methamphetamine behind the glove box of the vehicle. Both Ortega and
Hernandez were then placed under arrest. After Ortega realized he was being
arrested, he began to argue that the narcotics were not his and that he was
working as an informant for the United States Postal Inspection Service (“Postal
Inspection Service”). Ortega told Hyde to contact Dan Brubaker, a Postal
Inspector in Phoenix, Arizona, for w hom Ortega claimed to be working.
On June 16, 2005, both Ortega and Hernandez were indicted on one count
of Possession with Intent to Distribute M ethamphetamine. On July 1, 2005,
Ortega filed a brief under seal, raising a public authority defense. Ortega
contended that he was acting under a confidential informant agreement with the
Postal Inspection Service in Arizona at the time he was arrested. He identified
Postal Inspectors Dan Brubaker and Raul V argus as contact persons.
-2-
At trial, Brubaker testified that he used Ortega as a confidential informant
in his investigations of mail theft and identity theft for the Arizona Postal
Inspection Service. Although Brubaker acknowledged that methamphetamine was
often involved in mail theft schemes, he averred that he instructed Ortega not to
take possession of controlled dangerous substances. On one occasion, Ortega
brought Brubaker roughly 3.3 grams of methamphetamine, purportedly obtained
in the course of Ortega’s inside dealings with a mail theft ring. Brubaker
immediately told Ortega that the drugs were “meaningless” to his investigations
and warned Ortega not to receive drugs without the Postal Inspection Service’s
“prior firsthand knowledge.” Brubaker informed Ortega that if “he was arrested
with methamphetamines on his person that [Brubaker] didn’t have prior
knowledge to [sic] . . . there was nothing [Brubaker] could do” to help Ortega
avoid criminal prosecution for drug possession.
According to Brubaker, Ortega called him in April or M ay 2005 and
informed him that Hernandez asked for Ortega’s assistance in transporting a “load
of identifications and drugs” from Arizona to Arkansas. Brubaker testified that
he told Ortega not to take this trip. However, later in that same telephone
conversation, Brubaker asked Ortega to inform him if Ortega discovered the
location of the “load” before it left Arizona. Brubaker had no further contact
with Ortega prior to his arrest.
-3-
Raul Vargas, Brubaker’s supervisor, also testified at trial. He addressed the
scope of Ortega’s confidential informant agreement, which explicitly barred
activity without the prior approval of the Postal Inspection Service. The
agreement, read by Vargas at trial, states that “any undercover related activity
taken without the express prior approval of the Inspection Service places [the
informant] outside [the] agreement and subjects [the informant] to any applicable
criminal penalties or civil liabilities.” A portion of the agreement also prohibits
the receipt of controlled substances. Vargas asserted that he discussed each
provision of the agreement with Ortega.
Ortega testified that he believed he undertook the trip under the authority of
Brubaker. According to his testimony, he informed Brubaker in M ay that
Hernandez w as planning a trip to Arkansas to transport a “load” of “papers,
I.D.’s, checks,” and drugs. Although Ortega admitted that Brubaker told him not
to take the trip, he averred that Brubaker asked him to find out where the “I.D.’s”
were located. Ortega claimed that neither Brubaker nor V argas told him not to
take drugs into his possession and asserted that both men lied in their trial
testimony on this issue.
A jury found Ortega guilty, and the district court sentenced him to 151
months’ imprisonment, at the bottom of his Guidelines range. Ortega now
appeals his conviction.
-4-
If counsel conscientiously examines a case and determines that any appeal
would be wholly frivolous, counsel may so advise the court and request
permission to withdraw. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. Counsel must submit a brief to
both the appellate court and the client pointing to anything in the record that
would potentially present an appealable issue. The client may then choose to
offer any argument to the court. If, upon completely examining the record, the
court determines that the appeal is in fact frivolous, it may grant counsel’s request
to withdraw and dismiss the appeal. Id. In the present case, counsel provided
Ortega with a copy of his appellate brief, and Ortega has not filed a pro se brief
raising any additional argument.
Counsel’s A nders brief identifies one potentially appealable issue:
insufficiency of the evidence at trial. In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence
to support a conviction, “w e review the record de novo to determine w hether,
view ing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, a reasonable
jury could have found the defendant guilty of the crime beyond a reasonable
doubt.” United States v. Colonna, 360 F.3d 1169, 1178 (10th Cir. 2004). In a
case involving a public authority defense, we will uphold the jury verdict if a
rational juror could find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant did not
reasonably believe he was acting as an authorized agent of the Government. See
United States v. Apperson, 441 F.3d 1162, 1205 (10th Cir. 2006). Brubaker
-5-
stated under oath that he explicitly told Ortega not to take the trip to Arizona, and
Ortega admitted that he received that instruction. Vargas read into evidence
Ortega’s confidential informant agreement, which states that any action taken
without the express prior approval of the Postal Inspection Service subjects
Ortega to criminal penalties. M oreover, both Brubaker and Vargas testified that
they instructed Ortega not to take possession of illegal drugs. Although Ortega
contended that both men lied about giving this instruction, a reasonable jury could
believe the Inspectors’ testimony over Ortega’s. The evidence at trial was thus
sufficient to support the jury’s verdict rejecting Ortega’s public authority defense.
For the reasons stated above, we A FFIR M Ortega’s convictions, D ISM ISS
the appeal, and G R A N T counsel’s motion to withdraw.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Carlos F. Lucero
Circuit Judge
-6-