* After examining appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has

determined unanimously that oral argument would notmaterially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore submitted without o ral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. The court ge nerally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and ju dgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### DEC 10 2003 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. ANTONIO GUZMAN-ESPINOZA, also known as Tonio, Defendant-Appellant. No. 02-4191 (D.C. No. 2:00-CR-504-01-TS)

(Utah)



### ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before SEYMOUR , MURPHY , and O’BRIEN , Circuit Judges.
Mr. Antonio Guzman-Espinoza was sentenced to a termof 108 months after pleading guilty to distribution of cocaine base, di stribution of heroin, and illegal re-entry after being deported. At his sentencing h earing, Mr. Guzman-Espinoza-2-

expressed dissatisfaction with his attorney and with the length of his sentence. Based on Mr. Guzman-Espinoza’s comments, his attorn ey made an oral motion to withdraw. The district court never ruled on the mo tion. Mr. Guzman-Espinoza then sent two letters to the district court, asking for an appeal. Mr. GuzmanEspinoza’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and moves for leave to withdraw as coun sel. For the reasons set out below, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and di smiss the appeal. Anders holds that if counsel finds a case to be wholly fr ivolous after conscientious examination, he may advise the court and request permission to withdraw. Counsel must also submit to both the cou rt and his client a brief referring to anything in the record arguably supportive of the appeal. The client may then raise any point he chooses, and the court thereafter undertakes a complete examination of all proceedings and decides whether the appeal is in fact frivolous. If it so finds, it may grant counsel’s request to withdraw and dismiss the appeal. See id. at 744. Counsel provided Mr. Guzman-Espinoza and the government with copies of his appellate brief. Mr. Guzman-Espinoza has not filed a response, and the government submitted noti fication that it did not intend to file a response brief. In his first letter to the district court, Mr. Guzm an-Espinoza asserted that he was going to appeal because he believed he needed asecond chance. In his-3-

second letter, he reminded the court that he had as ked for an appeal in his earlier letter and notified the court that he had no attorn ey (although Mr. James Garrett was his attorney at that time). These two letters are the only documents in the record from Mr. Guzman-Espinoza, and neither of the m states any reason meriting an appeal. Having fully examined the proceedings as required b y Anders, we conclude that Mr. Guzman-Espinoza’s appeal is indeed withoutmerit. It is important to note at the outset that Mr. Guzman-Espinoza entered a guilty plea on Counts 1, 3, and 4 of the indictment and thereby waived all non-jurisdictional challenges to his conviction. United States v. Dwyer , 245 F.3d 1168, 1170 (10th Cir. 2001) (quoting United States v. Wright , 43 F.3d 491, 494 (10th Cir. 1994)). Counsel also points out that Mr. Guzman-Espinoza’s sentence was correct and falls within the parameters set forth in the United States Sente ncing Guidelines. We agree, because Mr. Guzman-Espinoza’s total offense level o f 30 and Criminal History Category of II yields a guideline range of 108-135 months. During his plea colloquy, the district court inform ed Mr. Guzman-Espinoza about the consequences of entering a guilty plea. Mr. Guzman-Espinoza responded that he understood the plea agreement and that he entered into the agreement voluntarily. After careful review of the entire proceedings, we agree with counsel that no non-frivolous grounds for appe al appear on this record. We-4-

see nothing in the record to indicate that Mr. Guzm an-Espinoza’s guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary, nor do we discern any er ror in the district court’s acceptance of the plea or in the terms of the plea agreement. There are no sentencing issues for appeal. Accordingly, we GRANT counsel’s request to withdraw and we DISMISS the appeal.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Stephanie K. Seymour Circuit Judge