Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-06-02263/USCOURTS-ca10-06-02263-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Julian Fregoso-Rodriguez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

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This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of *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

 The Superseding Indictment alleged sixteen counts.

1

F I LED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

August 3, 2007

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JULIAN FREGOSO-RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 06-2263

(D. N.M.)

(D.Ct. No. CR-05-2458-JC)

ORDER & JUDGMENT

*

Before KELLY, MURPHY, 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 Miguel Barragan-Ledemza) pled

guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to a single count of conspiracy to possess 1

with intent to distribute more than one kilogram of heroin in violation of 21

Appellate Case: 06-2263 Document: 010122360 Date Filed: 08/03/2007 Page: 1 
-2-

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 “safetyvalve” 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 was eighty-seven to one hundred eight months imprisonment. At

sentencing, Fregoso-Rodriguez asked the district court to sentence him to eightyseven 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. We “must then conduct a full

Appellate Case: 06-2263 Document: 010122360 Date Filed: 08/03/2007 Page: 2 
 Anders holds “if counsel finds [his client’s] case to be wholly frivolous, after a 2

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-

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. Our resolution 2

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

Appellate Case: 06-2263 Document: 010122360 Date Filed: 08/03/2007 Page: 3 
-4-

presumptively reasonable. United States v. Kristl, 437 F.3d 1050, 1055 (10th Cir.

2006) (sentences within 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 withdraw is GRANTED and

this appeal is DISMISSED.

Entered by the Court:

Terrence L. O’Brien

United States Circuit Judge

Appellate Case: 06-2263 Document: 010122360 Date Filed: 08/03/2007 Page: 4