Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-07-04034/USCOURTS-ca10-07-04034-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Jose Vasquez-Ramirez
Appellant

Document Text:

This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the *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.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined **

unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral

argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

September 26, 2007

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 07-4034

v. (D. Utah)

JOSE VASQUEZ-RAMIREZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

 (D.C. No. 2:06-CR-0459-003-DB)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT

*

Before HENRY, TYMKOVICH, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.**

Jose Vasquez-Ramirez pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to

distribute more that fifty grams of methamphetamine, a violation of 21 U.S.C. §

846. Applying United States Sentencing Guidelines § 5C1.2, the safety valve

provision, the district court sentenced Mr. Vasquez-Ramirez to eighty-seven

Appellate Case: 07-4034 Document: 010139778 Date Filed: 09/26/2007 Page: 1 
-2-

months’ imprisonment, the low end of the Guideline range and well below the

ten-year minimum sentence set forth in 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A).

On appeal, Mr. Vasquez-Ramirez’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Counsel reports that

“[d]efendant is unhappy with his sentence, however, counsel is not aware of any

appealable issues in this case.” Aplt’s Br. at 14. 

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). In

such a case, “counsel must submit a brief to the client and the appellate court

indicating any potential appealable issues based on the record.” Id. The client is

then permitted to submit arguments to the court in response. Id. The court must

then fully examine the record “to determine whether defendant’s claims are

wholly frivolous.” Id. If so, the court may dismiss the appeal. Id. 

Here, Mr. Vasquez-Ramirez was served with his counsel’s brief. However,

Mr. Vasquez-Ramirez has not informed the court of any issues he wishes to raise

on appeal. Based on our independent review of the record, we agree with counsel

that there are no non-frivolous grounds upon which Mr. Vasquez-Ramirez could

appeal his conviction or his sentence. The record indicates that Mr. VasquezRamirez’s plea was knowing and voluntary. His sentence is supported by the

applicable law and the facts of this case. 

Appellate Case: 07-4034 Document: 010139778 Date Filed: 09/26/2007 Page: 2 
-3-

Accordingly, we DISMISS this appeal. 

Entered for the Court,

Robert H. Henry

United States Circuit Judge 

 

Appellate Case: 07-4034 Document: 010139778 Date Filed: 09/26/2007 Page: 3