Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-09-07048/USCOURTS-ca10-09-07048-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jorge Montano
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

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

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist 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not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,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

January 8, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

JORGE MONTANO, a/k/a Jorge

Cardenas,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-7048

(D.C. No. 6:08-CR-00041-RAW-4)

(E.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before MURPHY, McKAY, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.

A jury convicted Jorge Montano of one count of conspiracy to possess with

intent to distribute and distribution of controlled substances (“Count One”) and

one count of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute (“Count Two”). 

The jury concluded that less than one hundred grams of marijuana was

attributable to Montano. The district court sentenced Montano to seventy months’

Appellate Case: 09-7048 Document: 01018344487 Date Filed: 01/08/2010 Page: 1 
-2-

imprisonment on Count One and sixty months on Count Two. Montano

announced at the sentencing hearing that he intended to appeal because he thought

the sentence on Count One was excessive. After sentencing, and at the request of

the government but outside the presence of defense counsel, the court reduced the

sentence on Count One to sixty months. By the time Montano received notice of

the sentence modification, however, he had already filed his notice of appeal. 

Montano’s attorney has filed a brief under the authority of Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967). Neither Montano nor the government has filed briefs in this

matter.

Pursuant to Anders, Montano’s counsel has informed this court that this

appeal is wholly frivolous and has requested to withdraw. See id. at 744. As for

our obligation under Anders, see id., we have fully examined the record and agree

with counsel that this appeal is frivolous. The sentencing issue that triggered the

appeal in the first instance has been mooted; the evidence was sufficient to

sustain Montano’s conviction; and the evidence of another conspiracy presented

at trial could not have confused the jury. 

Appellate Case: 09-7048 Document: 01018344487 Date Filed: 01/08/2010 Page: 2 
-3-

After reviewing the record on appeal, we see no meritorious issues for

appeal. We therefore DISMISS this appeal and GRANT counsel’s motion to

withdraw.

Entered for the Court

Michael R. Murphy

Circuit Judge

Appellate Case: 09-7048 Document: 01018344487 Date Filed: 01/08/2010 Page: 3