Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-04068/USCOURTS-ca10-16-04068-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jesus Fajardo-Zamora
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

JESUS FAJARDO-ZAMORA, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 16-4068 

(D.C. No. 2:16-CR-00029-DN-1) 

(D. Utah) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before LUCERO, MATHESON, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Federal prisoner Jesus Fajardo-Zamora appeals his sentence. His appointed 

counsel has submitted an Anders brief stating this appeal presents no non-frivolous 

grounds for reversal. We have carefully reviewed the record, and we agree. Exercising 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we grant counsel’s motion and dismiss the appeal. 

 

*

 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. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, 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. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

November 8, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 16-4068 Document: 01019717373 Date Filed: 11/08/2016 Page: 1 
- 2 - 

I. BACKGROUND 

A. Conviction and Sentence 

Mr. Fajardo-Zamora pled guilty to a single count of reentry of a previously 

removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The Presentence Investigative Report 

(“PSR”) recommended a total offense level of 21 and a criminal history category of III. 

The offense level included a 16-level adjustment based on Mr. Fajardo-Zamora’s prior 

drug-trafficking conviction. The PSR also recommended a two-level reduction based on 

his consent to have his case resolved through the district court’s fast-track program. The 

fast-track reduction moved the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“Guidelines”) range 

from 46-57 months to 37-46 months. 

Mr. Fajardo-Zamora withdrew from the fast-track program at his change of plea 

hearing and argued for a below-Guidelines sentence of 24 months based on his health, 

age, and reason for returning to the United States. The district court “recognized [Mr. 

Fajardo-Zamora’s] age is a factor” but also discussed his criminal history and expressed 

“concerns about this defendant’s past [criminal] involvement.” ROA, Vol. III at 13. In 

the end, the court imposed a 37-month sentence. 

B. Anders Brief 

Mr. Fajardo-Zamora appeals the district court’s sentence. His appointed counsel 

filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), which 

authorizes counsel to request permission to withdraw where counsel 

conscientiously examines a case and determines that any appeal would be 

wholly frivolous. Under Anders, counsel must submit a brief to the client 

and the appellate court indicating any potential appealable issues based on 

the record. The client may then choose to submit arguments to the court. 

Appellate Case: 16-4068 Document: 01019717373 Date Filed: 11/08/2016 Page: 2 
- 3 - 

The Court must then conduct a full examination of the record to determine 

whether defendant’s claims are wholly frivolous. If the court concludes 

after such an examination that the appeal is frivolous, it may grant 

counsel’s motion to withdraw and may dismiss the appeal. 

United States v. Calderon, 428 F.3d 928, 930 (10th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). 

 Counsel indicates two potential issues on appeal: (1) “[w]hether the district court 

erred in declining to vary downward to a greater degree,” and (2) “[w]hether the district 

court committed plain error in failing to explain the sentence adequately.” Anders Br. at 

1. But counsel states neither argument was meritorious and seeks to withdraw given the 

absence of non-frivolous arguments on appeal. 

 The Clerk of Court sent a letter to Mr. Fajardo-Zamora informing him that his 

counsel had filed an Anders brief and explaining that he had 30 days to file a responsive 

brief. Mr. Fajardo-Zamora has not filed a response. 

II. DISCUSSION 

A. Below-Guidelines Variance 

The first issue in the Anders brief is whether the district court erred in declining to 

vary downward to a greater extent. Because Mr. Fajardo-Zamora withdrew from the fasttrack program, he no longer qualified for a two-level reduction, and his base offense level 

was 21 with a Guidelines range of 46-57 months. Nevertheless, the district court 

imposed a below-Guidelines sentence of 37 months. 

We review all sentences “under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall 

v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). “A sentence is substantively unreasonable if the 

length of the sentence is unreasonable given the totality of the circumstances in light of 

Appellate Case: 16-4068 Document: 01019717373 Date Filed: 11/08/2016 Page: 3 
- 4 - 

the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Haley, 529 F.3d 1308, 1311 (10th Cir. 

2008). A sentence that falls below the advisory guideline range is presumptively 

reasonable. United States v. Perez-Jiminez, 654 F.3d 1136, 1146-47 (10th Cir. 2011). 

Here, the district court considered Mr. Fajardo-Zamora’s age and criminal history 

and imposed a below-Guidelines sentence. The sentence was presumptively reasonable, 

and we have uncovered nothing in the record to suggest it was “arbitrary, capricious, 

whimsical, or manifestly unreasonable.” United States v. Lente, 759 F.3d 1149, 1158 

(10th Cir. 2014). There are no non-frivolous grounds for reversal based on a challenge to 

the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. 

B. Adequate Explanation for the Sentence 

The second issue in the Anders brief is whether the district court adequately 

explained the sentence. Mr. Fajardo-Zamora did not raise this issue at the sentencing 

hearing, which subjects it to plain error review on appeal. United States v. Romero, 491 

F.3d 1173, 1177 (10th Cir. 2007) (stating plain error applies to unpreserved argument that 

the district court did not adequately explain the sentence). 

“The [district] court, at the time of the sentencing, shall state in open court the 

reasons for its imposition of the particular sentence.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c). But the court 

“is generally not required to articulate its reasoning for each of the § 3553 factors.” 

United States v. Sanchez-Leon, 764 F.3d 1248, 1266 (10th Cir. 2014). Nor is the court 

required to “recite any magic words to show us that it fulfilled its responsibility to be 

mindful of the [§ 3553] factors.” United States v. Contreras-Martinez, 409 F.3d 1236, 

1242 (10th Cir. 2005) (quotations omitted). “Even when the sentencing court varies from 

Appellate Case: 16-4068 Document: 01019717373 Date Filed: 11/08/2016 Page: 4 
- 5 - 

the [G]uidelines, it need not explicitly discuss each of the § 3553(a) factors.” United 

States v. Gantt, 679 F.3d 1240, 1249 (10th Cir. 2012). 

When explaining the sentence, the district court acknowledged Mr. FajardoZamora’s age, but also expressed concern with his past criminal conduct. ROA, Vol. III 

at 13. We have reviewed the record and have found no non-frivolous arguments that the 

district court’s explanation for the sentence was plainly erroneous. 

III.CONCLUSION 

Our independent review found no non-frivolous grounds for reversal based on the 

issues identified in the Anders brief, nor did it uncover any other non-frivolous grounds. 

We therefore grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and dismiss this appeal. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT, 

Scott M. Matheson, Jr. 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 16-4068 Document: 01019717373 Date Filed: 11/08/2016 Page: 5