T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he * doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, h o w e v e r, fo r its p e rsu a siv e v a lu e c o n sis ten t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C i r . R . 32. 1. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Ju ly11,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

Pl ai nt i ff–A ppel l ee, N o. 06- 2287 v. ( D . C. N o. CR - 06 - 82 1 J P) F A R A O N R O B L E D O

– R IV E R A , (D .N .M .)

D e fe n d a n t– A p p e llan t.

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e B RI S CO E , M c KAY , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es. D e fe n d a n t p lea d e d g u iltyto ill e g a l re -e n tryo f a d e p o rte d a lien p re v io u sly co n v ict ed o f a n ag g rav ated fe lon y , in v iolati o n o f 8 U . S . C . § 1 3 2 6 (a)(1), ( a)(2 ), and ( b) ( 2) . D efe ndantw as s ent ence d t o fi fty - s even mont hs ’ i m pr i s onm ent , t he bot t om of the appl i cabl e advi s oryG ui del i nes ’ r ange. D efe ndantchal l enges t he l ength of hi s s ent ence . D efe ns e couns el has fi l ed a mot i on t o w i thdr aw and a br i ef i n s uppor tof thatm ot i on i n compl i ance w i th A n d e rs v . C a lif o rn ia , 3 8 6 U .S . 7 3 8 (1 9 6 7 ). C o u n sel asse rt s tha t D efen d an t’ s g rou n d fo r ap p ea l i s w ith o u t m eritan d that there- 2-

a re n o o th e r n o n -f

ri v o lo u s is s u e s fo r a p p e a l. W e agr ee w i th couns el t hatthe di s tr i ctcour tcorr ect l ycal cul at ed the G u id e lin e s’ r a n g e a n d im p o se d a re a so n a b le s e n ten c e . A lth o u g h D e fe n d a n t d id a rg u e a t se n ten c in g th a t h e “ w a s fo o led a n d d e c e iv e d ” a b o u t th e p o ss ib le le n g th o f h is sen tenc e a n d “n ee d [e d ] an o ther law y er” as a resu lt(S en t’ g H r’g a t 4), there i s no evi dence i n the r ecor d t o s uppor tthatal l egat i on. T her e w as ext ens i ve exami nat i on atthe pl ea he ar i ng r egar di ng D efe ndant ’ s under s t andi ng of the c h a rg e a n d p o s s ib le s e n te n c e ra n g e s a p p lic a b le a s a re s u lt o f h is c ri m in a l h is to ry. D efe ndantacknow l edged thatthos e r anges w er e onl ya “be s tgues s ” ( Pl ea H r ’ g at 12) and thatats ent enci ng he coul d “geta more s ever e s ent ence ” ( i d. a t 1 3 ). D efe ndantal s o s t at ed thathe w as s at i s fi ed w i th hi s att or ney ’ s r epr es ent at i on and h a d k n o w in g lya n d v o lu n tar ilyp lea d e d g u iltya f ter a d e q u a te d isc u ss io n w ith h is att orney . A ts ent enci ng, D efe ndantr econf i r m ed hi s s t at ement s of gui l tand a c k n o w led g e d th a t h is o ffe n se lev e l an d c rim in a l h isto ryc a teg o ryw e re p ro p e rly cal cul at ed. I n addi t i on, t he s ent enci ng courtcons i der ed D efe ndant ’ s hi s t oryof r obbery , the pr e- s ent ence r eport , and the § 3553 fa ct or s befor e s ent enci ng D e fe n d a n t a t th e b o tto m o f th e c o rr e c tly-c a lc u la te d G u id e lin e s ’ r a n g e . A ft erful l yexami ni ng the r ecor d and cons i der i ng the A nd ers br i ef f i l ed by D efe ndant ’ s couns el , w e conc l ude thatther e ar e no non- fr i vol ous i s s ues upon w hi ch D efe ndantm aybas e hi s appea l . W e ca n di s cern no bas i s forchal l engi ng hi s gui l typl ea orhi s s ent ence . W e ther efor e GR ANT c o u n se l’s m o tio n to- 3-

w i thdr aw and AF F I RM the j udgm entand s ent ence . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

M onr oe G . M cK ay C i r cui tJ udge