* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate recor d, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argumentwould not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. Se e Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered sub mitted without oral argument. 

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

### MAY 19 2003 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, vs. JIMMY LEON FOWLER, Defendant - Appellant. No. 02-7097 (D.C. No. 02-CR-22-S) (E.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before KELLY , BRISCOE , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges. **

Defendant-Appellant Jimmy Leon Fowler appeals follo wing his conviction for possession of a firearm after a former felony c onviction in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Counsel for Mr. Fowler filed abrief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and moved for leave to withdr aw as counsel. Although Mr. Fowler was afforded 30 days within whi ch to raise any challenges- 2 -

to his conviction or his sentence, he failed to do so within the time period provided. Our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we dismiss the appeal and grant counsel’s request to withdraw. Mr. Fowler was charged with possession of a firearmafter a former felony conviction (“Count I”), and possession of ammunitio n after a former felony conviction (“Count II”). Mr. Fowler thereafter ent ered an unconditional guilty plea to Count I, and was sentenced to 15 months imp risonment followed by 36 months of supervised release. The district court t hereafter dismissed Count II at the government’s request. In his Anders brief, counsel for Mr. Fowler states that after di ligently reviewing the case he was unable to find “any argua ble issue that may support an appeal.” Aplt. Br. at 5. In Anders , the Supreme Court held that if appointed counsel “finds his case to be wholly frivolous, aft er a conscientious examination of it, he should so advise the court and request pe rmission to withdraw.” 386 U.S. at 744. Where counsel has filed an Anders brief, we must conduct a “full examination of all the proceedings” to determine if the appeal is “wholly frivolous.” Id. If we concur in counsel’s evaluation of the case, we may grant the request to withdraw and dismiss the appeal. Id. After a thorough review of the record we conclude t here are no meritorious issues for appeal. As to Mr. Fowler’s conviction, we note at the outset that where1 We note that prior to sentencing Mr. Fowler objec ted to the initial

guideline range calculation contained in the presen tence report (“PSR”) on the ground that it erroneously assessed one criminal hi story point for a prior conviction that was punishable by a fine only. III R., Addendum To The Presentence Report. In response, the PSR author ag reed that the conviction should not have been counted and therefore reduced Mr. Fowler’s criminal history category score by one point, which lowered the appl icable guideline range to 12- 18 months, the range employed by the district courtin sentencing Mr. Fowler. - 3 - a defendant pleads guilty, his “only avenue for cha llenging his conviction is to claim that he did not voluntarily or intelligently enter his plea.” United States v. Wright , 43 F.3d 491, 494 (10th Cir. 1994) (citing Mabry v . Johnson , 467 U.S. 504, 508-09 (1984)). However, Mr. Fowler has not a rgued that his plea was involuntary or unknowing, and nothing in the record suggests that it was. As to the validity of his sentence, the record reveals th at the sentence imposed was within the applicable guideline range, that the gui deline range was correctly determined, 1 and that the district court did not exceed the statutory maximum sentence for the offense of conviction. Accordingly, we DISMISS the appeal and GRANT counse l’s request to withdraw.

Entered for the Court Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge