F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS
August 3, 2007
TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
U N ITED STA TES O F A M ER ICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 06-2263
(D . N.M .)
JULIAN FREGO SO-RO DR IGU EZ, (D.Ct. No. CR-05-2458-JC)
Defendant - Appellant.
OR DER & JUDGM ENT *
Before KELLY, M U RPH Y, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination
of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Julian Fregoso-Rodriguez (also known as M iguel Barragan-Ledemza) pled
guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to a single count 1 of conspiracy to possess
with intent to distribute more than one kilogram of heroin in violation of 21
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of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 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
1
The Superseding Indictment alleged sixteen counts.
U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A). As part of the plea agreement, the
government agreed to a reduction in his offense level for acceptance of
responsibility and conceded Fregoso-Rodriguez may also be eligible for a “safety-
valve” reduction, allowing him to avoid the statutory mandatory minimum
sentence of ten years imprisonment for his offense. See USSG §§ 3E1.1, 5C1.2
and 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). Based on a total offense level of twenty-nine and a
criminal history category of I, Fregoso-Rodriguez’s advisory sentencing
guidelines range w as eighty-seven to one hundred eight months imprisonment. A t
sentencing, Fregoso-Rodriguez asked the district court to sentence him to eighty-
seven months imprisonment. The district court agreed. It sentenced him to
eighty-seven months imprisonment and recommended removal proceedings begin
while he served his sentence.
Fregoso-Rodriguez’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), advising the court that this appeal is wholly
frivolous. Accordingly, counsel also seeks permission to withdraw. Under
Anders, counsel may “request permission to withdraw where counsel
conscientiously examines a case and determines that any appeal would be wholly
frivolous.” United States v. Calderon, 428 F.3d 928, 930 (10th Cir. 2005).
Counsel is required to submit an appellate brief “indicating any potential
appealable issues . . . .” Id. Once notified of counsel's brief, the defendant may
then submit additional arguments to this Court. Id. W e “must then conduct a full
-2-
examination of the record to determine whether defendant’s claims are wholly
frivolous.” Id.
Fregoso-Rodriguez was given notice of the Anders brief and counsel’s
request to withdraw, but he did not file a brief or other pleadings. 2 Our resolution
of the case is, therefore, based on counsel's Anders brief, the government's
response, and our independent review of the record.
In his Anders brief, counsel notes Fregoso-Rodriguez appeals from his
sentence on the simple ground that it is too long and correctly identifies our plain
error standard of review because no objection was lodged below. Counsel further
asserts that such an appeal is frivolous because the sentence imposed is within a
properly calculated guideline range, the court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)
factors, and the sentence received was the one requested by Fregoso-Rodriguez.
Our independent review of the record demonstrates counsel is correct in asserting
this appeal is frivolous. The district court imposed a sentence at the bottom of
the properly calculated advisory guidelines range. Therefore, the sentence is
2
Anders holds “if counsel finds [his client’s] case to be wholly frivolous, after a
conscientious examination of it, he should so advise the court and request permission to
withdraw.” 386 U.S. at 744. Counsel must submit to both the court and his client a “brief
referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.” Id. The client
may then “raise any points he chooses.” Id. Thereafter, the court must completely
examine all the proceedings to determine the frivolity of the appeal. “If it so finds it may
grant counsel’s request to withdraw and dismiss the appeal . . . . [I]f it finds any of the
legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous) it must, prior to
decision, afford the indigent the assistance of counsel to argue the appeal.” Id.
-3-
presumptively reasonable. United States v. Kristl, 437 F.3d 1050, 1055 (10th Cir.
2006) (sentences w ithin a properly calculated guideline range are presumptively
reasonable). A complete review of the record reveals no facts or circumstances
that would render Fregoso-Rodriguez’s sentence unreasonable in light of the other
sentencing factors set out in § 3553(a). See id. Thus, the record reveals no
claims arguable on their merits. Counsel's request to w ithdraw is GRANTED and
this appeal is DISM ISSED.
Entered by the C ourt:
Terrence L. O ’Brien
United States Circuit Judge
-4-