Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-01080/USCOURTS-ca10-15-01080-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Francisco Sahagun-Ramirez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

FRANCISCO SAHAGUN-RAMIREZ, 

a/k/a Chico, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 15-1080 

(D.C. No. 1:13-CR-00046-PAB-002) 

(D. Colo.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before KELLY, LUCERO, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Francisco Sahagun-Ramirez appeals following his guilty plea to conspiracy to 

possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine. His counsel moves for leave to 

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

Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a), we dismiss 

the appeal and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. 

 *

 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 

September 24, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-1080 Document: 01019495966 Date Filed: 09/24/2015 Page: 1 
-2- 

I

 Sahagun-Ramirez was charged with numerous drug-related crimes in a multidefendant indictment. Pursuant to a written plea agreement, he pled guilty to one 

count: conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine. Anticipating 

an advisory Guidelines range of 70 to 87 months, the government agreed to 

recommend a sentence of 38 to 48 months. However, the district court determined 

that the proper Guidelines range was 97 to 121 months, based on a total offense level 

of 29 and a criminal history category of II. The government maintained its 

sentencing recommendation from the plea agreement. The court imposed a sentence 

of 60 months’ imprisonment. Sahagun-Ramirez timely appealed. 

II

If an attorney concludes that any appeal would be frivolous after 

conscientiously examining the case, counsel may so advise the court and request 

permission to withdraw. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. Counsel must submit a brief 

highlighting any potentially appealable issues and submit the brief to the defendant. 

Id. The defendant may then submit a pro se brief. Id. If the court determines that 

the appeal is in fact frivolous upon careful examination of the record, it may grant the 

request to withdraw and dismiss the appeal. Id. 

Counsel’s Anders brief first considers the procedural and substantive 

reasonableness of Sahagun-Ramirez’s sentence. “We review sentences under an 

abuse of discretion standard for procedural and substantive reasonableness.” United 

States v. Washington, 634 F.3d 1180, 1184 (10th Cir. 2011). “Procedural review 

Appellate Case: 15-1080 Document: 01019495966 Date Filed: 09/24/2015 Page: 2 
-3- 

asks whether the sentencing court committed any error in calculating or explaining 

the sentence.” United States v. Alapizco-Valenzuela, 546 F.3d 1208, 1214 (10th Cir. 

2008). “Substantive review involves whether the length of the sentence is reasonable 

given all the circumstances of the case in light of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a).” Id. at 1215 (quotation omitted). A below-Guidelines sentence is entitled 

to a “rebuttable presumption of reasonableness.” United States v. Balbin-Mesa, 643 

F.3d 783, 788 (10th Cir. 2011). We agree with counsel that the district court 

correctly determined Sahagun-Ramirez’s Guidelines range and properly explained his 

sentence by reference to the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. And we see nothing in the 

record rebutting the presumption that Sahagun-Ramirez’s below-Guidelines sentence 

was substantively reasonable. 

The Anders brief also discusses whether Sahagun-Ramirez’s plea was valid. 

To be valid, a guilty plea must be entered knowingly and voluntarily. See United 

States v. Jim, 786 F.3d 802, 806 (10th Cir. 2015). We agree with counsel that the 

record would not support a claim that Sahagun-Ramirez’s plea was invalid. He pled 

guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement and did so only after acknowledging the 

consequences of his plea and its concomitant waiver of various rights. See id. at 812-

13 (defendant’s acknowledgment sufficient to show knowing and voluntary nature of 

plea).1

 1

 Although Sahagun-Ramirez’s plea agreement contains a waiver of appellate 

rights, the government has not moved to enforce that waiver. Because an appellate 

waiver does not limit our subject-matter jurisdiction, we proceed to consider the 

Appellate Case: 15-1080 Document: 01019495966 Date Filed: 09/24/2015 Page: 3 
-4- 

In his pro se brief, Sahagun-Ramirez raises two issues. First, he contends that 

the district court erred in assessing two criminal history points for a prior 

misdemeanor illegal reentry offense. He cites U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(c)(1), which 

provides a list of misdemeanor offenses that should not be considered in determining 

a defendant’s criminal history category, including offenses “similar” to those listed. 

Id. None of the listed offenses, however, are similar to illegal reentry. See id. 

(listing, among other offenses, fish and game violations, hitchhiking, and vagrancy). 

Sahagun-Ramirez also states that this offense should not have been counted based on 

the plea agreement. However, the plea agreement makes clear that Guidelines 

determinations are committed to the court, and that the parties merely “believe[d]” 

that Sahagun-Ramirez would be in criminal history category I. 

Second, Sahagun-Ramirez argues that the district court erred by failing to 

consider a downward departure under a “fast track” or “early disposition” program. 

See U.S.S.G. § 5K3.1. However, Sahagun-Ramirez has not shown that he would 

have been eligible for this program, and thus is not entitled to relief on this basis. 

See United States v. Lopez-Macias, 661 F.3d 485, 494 (10th Cir. 2011) (“In this 

Circuit the law is well established that the defendant shall bear the burden of proof 

for sentence decreases.” (quotation omitted)). 

 

issues raised by Sahagun-Ramirez and counsel. See United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 

1315, 1324 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc). 

Appellate Case: 15-1080 Document: 01019495966 Date Filed: 09/24/2015 Page: 4 
-5- 

III

Because we are not presented with any meritorious grounds for appeal, we 

GRANT counsel’s request to withdraw and DISMISS the appeal. 

Entered for the Court 

Carlos F. Lucero 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 15-1080 Document: 01019495966 Date Filed: 09/24/2015 Page: 5