Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-02060/USCOURTS-ca10-92-02060-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Manuel Perez-Payan
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

F IL L .u 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPE-btifted States Court of Appeal! 

Tenth Circuit 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

MANUEL PEREZ-PAYAN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

DECO 9 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 92-2060 

(D. N.M., No. 91-591-JC) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR, ANDERSON, and EBEL, Circuit Judges.** 

This is a direct criminal appeal in which the appellant 

complains about his 33-month sentence which was admittedly at the 

lower end of the appropriate sentencing guideline range. 

Appellant raises no argument that the sentence was illegal or that 

it was an incorrect application of the guidelines. Accordingly, 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

** Neither side has requested oral argument in this case. We 

unanimously agree that oral argument could not materially assist 

the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th 

Cir. R. 34.1.9. Therefore, we consider this appeal on the briefs. 

Appellate Case: 92-2060 Document: 010110151511 Date Filed: 12/09/1992 Page: 1 
we have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal. United States v. 

Garcia, 919 F.2d 1478, 1481 (10th Cir. 1990). 

The appeal is DISMISSED. 1 The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the court 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

1 Appellant's counsel submitted an Anders brief, and appellant 

himself filed a notice of withdrawal of the appeal "in order to 

leave open a later possible appeal." Because a convicted 

defendant has only one direct criminal appeal and because that 

right must be timely asserted, granting appellant's notice of 

withdrawal would not preserve his right to a later possible direct 

appeal. Because appellant's notice of withdrawal appears to have 

been contingent in nature and suggests a contingency which cannot 

be preserved, we determined it was best simply to address this 

appeal on its merits and to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. 

Appellate Case: 92-2060 Document: 010110151511 Date Filed: 12/09/1992 Page: 2