UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff–Appellee,

v. HURIEL MENDEZ-MUNOZ, a/k/a Huriel Munoz Mendez, a/k/a Jose Perez, Defendant–Appellant. No. 14-6038 (D.C. No. 5:13- CR-00203-M-1) (W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before LUCERO , TYMKOVICH , and PHILLIPS , Circuit Judges.

Huriel Mendez-Munoz, a native of Mexico , appeals following his guilty plea to one count of illegal reentry. His counsel seeks leave to withdraw in a brief filed pursuant

* After examining appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument wo uld not materially assi st the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a )(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34 .1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argu ment. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctri nes of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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 

### October 17, 2014
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court- 2 - 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.
I Mendez-Munoz pled guilty to a single c ount of reentry of a removed alien in violation of 8 U.S.C § 1326(a). His presente nce investigation report calculated a total offense level of seventeen, which included a twelve-level enhancement for a prior California conviction. To es tablish proof of this previo us conviction, the government proffered an order granting probation and term s of probation from a California court that specified the California statute under whic h Mendez-Munoz was convicted. MendezMunoz unsuccessfully objected to the twelve -level enhancement, arguing that the probation order was inadequate proof to warra nt such an increase. The district court imposed a sentence of 24 months. Mendez-Munoz timely appealed.
II If, after a conscientious examination of th e case, an attorney determines that any appeal would be wholly frivolous, that atto rney may so advise the court and request permission to withdraw. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. That request must be accompanied by a brief identifying any potentially appealable issues. Id. Th e defendant may then file a pro se brief. The court may grant a motion to withdraw and dismiss an appeal if, after a careful examination of the record, it decides that the case is wholly frivol ous. Id. In this- 3 - case, counsel has filed an Anders brief that identifies as a potentially appealable issue insufficient evidence to suppor t the twelve-level enhancement, specifically highlighting the “fundamental disconnect” between the relatively short probated sentence MendezMunoz received for his 1997 conviction and “t he seriousness and consequences of the former conviction alleged and found here.” Mendez-Munoz was notified of his counsel’s Anders brief, but he did not file a pro se brief. We review the district court’s legal inte rpretation of the senten cing guidelines de novo and the district court’s factual finding s for clear error. United States v. ZunigaChavez, 464 F.3d 1199, 1203 ( 10th Cir. 2006). “The government must establish the fact of a prior conviction by a preponderance of th e evidence.” United States v. Simpson, 94 F.3d 1373, 1381 (10th Cir. 1996). After a thorough examination of the reco rd, we conclude that the district court acted properly when it found that the cour t-issued probation or der, signed by a deputy clerk, was sufficient proof to establis h Mendez-Munoz’s prior conviction by a preponderance of the evidence. The probatio n order states that Mendez-Munoz had been convicted of a felony and it provides the Ca lifornia Penal Code section under which Mendez-Munoz was convicted. Mendez-Munoz does not question the authenticity or reliability of this document. The only evidence he offers to challenge the enhancement is unfounded speculatio n about an alleged “mismatch” be tween the length of the sentence and the crime. But the sentence Mendez-Muno z received was within the statutory range- 4 - for the crime of which he was convicted. Ca l. Penal Code § 288(c)(1); see Simpson, 94 F.3d at 1381 (“[A] certified docket sheet is adequate, absent some contradictory evidence by the defendant, to establish the existenc e of a prior conviction for sentencing purposes.”); United States v. Johnson, 973 F.2d 857, 861 (10th Ci r. 1992) (certified copies of “journal entry rev oking defendant’s probation” ba sed on a previous conviction is sufficient to prove prior conviction absent contrary proof); see also Zuniga-Chavez, 464 F.3d at 1204 (collecting unpublished d ecisions in which uncertified documents were deemed sufficient to support a sentence enhancement).
III Our full examination of the record iden tifies no issues in this case that might properly be the subject of an appeal. Becau se 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