T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptundert he * doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a and c ol l at er al es t oppel . I tm ay be ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t entw i th Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 ( eff . D ec. 1 , 2 0 0 6 ) an d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 . 1 (eff. Jan . 1 , 2 0 0 7 ). 

## F I LED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### December 19,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C lerk 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, v. J UL I O C E S AR OR T E GA, D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 06- 7016 ( D . C. N o. 05 - CR - 52 - P) (E . D . O k la .)

OR DER AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e KELLY , M c KAY , and LU CE RO , C i rcui tJudg es.

Ju lio C e sa r O rte g a a p p e a ls h is c o n v ictio n fo r P o ss e ss io n w ith In ten t to D i s tr i but e M ethamphet ami ne i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . §§ 841( a) ( 1) and 841( b) ( 1) ( A ) ( vi i i ) . O r t ega’ s couns el m oves forl eave t o w i thdr aw i n a br i ef fi l ed pur s uantt o A nder s v. C al i for ni a, 386 U . S. 738 ( 1967) . W e A F F I R M O rt eg a’s convi ct i on, D I SM I SS the appe al , and GRANT c o u n s e l ’ s mo t i o n t o wi th d r a w. O n M ay 3, 2005, O kl ahoma H i ghw ay Patr ol T r ooperC ody H y de s t opped- 2-

O r t ega a nd hi s pas s engerFer nando H er nandez i n Sequoy ah C ount y , O kl ahoma as t hey w er e dr i vi ng eas tbound on I nt er s t at e 40. H y de i ni t i at ed the s t op beca us e the v e h icle w a s tra v e lin g a t 7 6 m iles p e r h o u r, six m iles a b o v e th e p o ste d sp e e d lim it of 70 m i l es perhour . D ur i ng the s t op, H y de obs er ved thatO r t ega a nd H er nandez exhi bi t ed s i gns of ner vous nes s and pr ovi ded di ffe r i ng acc ount s of thei rtr avel pl ans . H y de as ked O r t ega forper m i s s i on t o s ear ch the vehi cl e, and O r t ega c o n s e n te d . H y de’ s i ns pecti on l ed t o t he di s cover y of appr oxi m at el y 815 gr ams of m ethamphet ami ne behi nd the gl ove box of the vehi cl e. B oth O r t ega a nd H er nandez w er e then pl ace d underarr es t . A ft erO r t ega r eal i zed he w as bei ng arr es t ed, he bega n t o ar gue thatthe nar cot i cs w er e nothi s and thathe w as w or ki ng as an i nfor m antforthe U ni t ed St at es Post al I ns pecti on Ser vi ce ( “Pos t al I ns pecti on Ser vi ce” ) . O r t ega t ol d H y de t o cont actD an B r ubaker , a Pos t al In s p e c to r i n P h o e n ix , A ri z o n a , fo r w h o m O rt e g a c la im e d to b e w o rk in g . O n J une 16, 2005, both O r t ega a nd H er nandez w er e i ndi ct ed on one c ount of Poss es s i on w i th I nt entt o D i s tr i but e M ethamphet ami ne. O n J ul y 1, 2005, O r t ega fi l ed a br i ef unde rs eal , r ai s i ng a publ i c author i t y defe ns e. O r t ega cont ended thathe w as acti ng undera confi dent i al i nfor m antagr eementw i th the Post al I ns pecti on Ser vi ce i n A r i zona a tt he t i m e he w as arr es t ed. H e i dent i fi ed P o s ta l I n s p e c to rs D a n B ru b a k e r a n d R a u l V a rg u s a s c o n ta c t p e rs o n s .- 3-

A ttr i al , B r ubakert es t i fi ed thathe us ed O r t ega a s a confi dent i al i nfor m ant i n hi s i nves t i gat i ons of m ai l t heftand i dent i t y theftforthe A r i zona Pos t al I ns pecti on Ser vi ce. A l though B r ubakeracknow l edged thatm ethamphet ami ne w as o ften in v o lv e d in m a il th e ft sc h e m e s, h e a v e rre d th a t h e in stru c ted O rte g a n o t to t ake pos s es s i on of contr ol l ed dange r ous s ubs t ance s . O n one occ as i on, O r t ega br oughtB r ubakerr oughl y 3. 3 gr ams of met hamphet ami ne, purpor t edl y obt ai ned i n the cour s e of O r t ega’ s i ns i de dea l i ngs w i th a mai l t heftr i ng. B r ubaker i m m edi at el y t ol d O r t ega thatthe drugs w er e “meani ngl es s ” t o hi s i nves t i gat i ons an d w arn ed O rt eg a n o t t o rec eive d rug s w ith o u t th e P o stal Insp ec ti o n S erv ice’s “pr i orfi r s thand know l edge. ” B r ubakeri nfor m ed O r t ega thati f “he w as arr es t ed w i t h m ethamphet ami nes on hi s per s on that[B r ubaker ] di dn’ thave pr i or know l edge t o [s i c] . . . ther e w as nothi ng [B r ubaker ] coul d do” t o hel p O r t ega a v o id c ri m in a l p ro s e c u tio n fo r d ru g p o s s e s s io n . A ccor di ng t o B r ubaker , O r t ega c al l ed hi m i n A pr i l orM ay 2005 and i nfor m ed hi m thatH er nandez as ked forO r t ega’ s as s i s t ance i n tr ans por t i ng a “l oad of i dent i fi cati ons and dr ugs ” fr om A r i zona t o A r kans as . B r ubakert es t i fi ed that he t ol d O r t ega nott o t ake thi s tr i p. H ow ever , l at eri n thats ame t el ephone conver s at i on, B r ubakeras ked O r t ega t o i nfor m hi m i f O r t ega di s cover ed the l ocati on of the “l oad” be for e i tl eftA r i zona. B r ubakerhad no fur thercont act w ith O rt e g a p ri o r t o h is a rr e s t.- 4-

R aul V ar gas , B r ubaker ’ s s uper vi s or , al s o t es t i fi ed attr i al . H e addr es s ed the s cope ofO r t ega’ s confi dent i al i nfor m antagr eement , w hi ch expl i ci t l y barr ed acti vi t y w i thout the pr i or appr oval of the Post al I ns pecti on Ser vi ce. T he a g re e m e n t, rea d b y V a rg a s a t trial, sta tes th a t “a n y u n d e rc o v e r re late d a c tiv ity t aken w i t houtthe expr es s pr i orappr oval of the I ns pecti on Ser vi ce pl ace s [the in fo rm a n t] o u tsid e [ th e ] a g re e m e n t an d su bjec ts [ th e in fo rm a n t] to a n y a p p lica b le c rim in a l p e n a lti e s o r c iv il l iab ili ties .” A p o rtio n o fth e a g re e m e n t als o p ro h ib its t he r ece i ptof contr ol l ed s ubs t ance s . V ar gas as s er t ed thathe di s cus s ed ea ch pr ovi s i on of the agr eementw i th O r t ega. O r t ega t es t i fi ed thathe bel i eved he under t ook the tr i p undert he author i t y of B r ubaker . A ccor di ng t o hi s t es t i m ony , he i nfor m ed B r ubakeri n M ay t hat H ernand ez w as pl ann i ng a tri p to A rkansas t o tr anspo rta “l oad ” of “ pap ers , I . D . ’ s , chec ks , ” and drugs . A l though O r t ega a dm i t t ed thatB r ubakert ol d hi m not t o take the tr i p, he av err ed thatB rubake r as ked him t o find o ut w here the “I. D . ’s ” w e re lo c a te d . O rte g a c laim e d th a t n e ith e r B ru b a k e r n o r V a rg a s to ld h im n o t to t ake drugs i nt o hi s pos s es s i on and as s er t ed thatboth m en l i ed i n thei rtr i al te s tim o n y o n th is is s u e . A j ur y found O r t ega gui l t y , and the di s tr i ctcour ts ent ence d hi m t o 151 m ont hs ’ i m pr i s onm ent , atthe bot t om of hi s G ui del i nes r ange. O r t ega now appea l s hi s convi ct i on.- 5-

I f couns el cons ci ent i ous l y exami nes a ca s e and de t er m i nes thatany appea l w ou l d b e w ho l l y fri vo l ou s, cou nsel m ay so adv i se the co urtand request p e rm iss io n to w ith d ra w . A n d e rs, 3 8 6 U .S . at 7 4 4 . C o u n se l m u st s u b m it a b rie fto bot h t he appe l l at e cour tand the cl i entpoi nt i ng t o any thi ng i n the r ecor d that w o u ld p o ten tially p re se n t an a p p e a lab le is su e . T h e c lien t m a y th e n c h o o se to offe rany ar gum entt o the cour t . I f, upon compl et el y exami ni ng the r ecor d, the cou rtdeter m i nes t hat the ap peal i s i n fac tfri vo l ou s, i tm ay grantcou nsel ’s request to w ith d ra w a n d d is m is s th e a p p e a l. I d . I n the pr es entcas e, couns el pr ovi ded O r t ega w i th a copyof hi s appel l at e br i ef, and O r t ega ha s notfi l ed a pr o s e br i ef ra is in g a n y a d d itio n a l a rg u m e n t. C o u n se l’s A n d e rs b rie fid e n tifie s o n e p o ten tially a p p e a lab le is su e : i ns uffi ci encyof the evi dence attr i al . I n r evi ew i ng the s uffi ci encyof the evi dence to su p p o rta c o n v ict ion , “w e re v iew the re co rd d e n o v o to d eterm ine w h ethe r, v iew in g th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o st fa v o ra b le to th e g o v e rn m e n t, a re a so n a b le ju ry c o u ld h a v e fo u n d th e d e fe n d a n t g u ilty o fth e c rim e b e y o n d a re a so n a b le doubt . ” U ni t ed St at es v. C ol onna, 360 F. 3d 1169, 1178 ( 10th C i r . 2004) . I n a cas e i nvol vi ng a publ i c author i t y defe ns e, w e w i l l uphol d the j ur y ver di cti f a r at i onal j ur orcoul d fi nd, bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt , thatthe defendantdi d not r eas onabl y bel i eve he w as acti ng as an author i zed a gentof the G over nm ent . See U ni t ed St at es v. A pper s on, 441 F. 3d 1162, 1205 ( 10th C i r . 2006) . B r ubaker- 6-

s t at ed underoath thathe expl i ci t l y t ol d O r t ega nott o t ake the tr i p t o A r i zona, and O r t ega a dm i t t ed thathe r ece i ved thati ns tr uct i on. V ar gas r ead i nt o evi dence O r t ega’ s confi dent i al i nfor m antagr eement , w hi ch s t at es t hatany acti on t aken w ith o u t th e e x p re ss p rio r a p p ro v a l o fth e P o sta l In sp e c tio n S e rv ice su bjec ts O rt e g a to c ri m in a l p e n a ltie s . M or eover , both B r ubakerand V ar gas t es t i fi ed that t hey i ns tr uct ed O r t ega nott o t ake pos s es s i on of i l l egal dr ugs . A l though O r t ega c o n ten d e d th a t b o th m e n lied a b o u t g iv in g th is in stru c tio n , a re a so n a b le ju ry c o u ld bel i eve the I ns pect or s ’ t es t i m ony overO r t ega’ s . T he evi dence attr i al w as t hus s uffi ci entt o s uppor tthe j ur y ’ s ver di ctr ej ecti ng O r t ega’ s publ i c author i t y defe ns e. Forthe r eas ons s t at ed above , w e A F F I R M O rt ega’s conv i ct i on s, D I SM I SS t he appe al , and GRANT c o u n s e l ’ s mo t i o n t o wi th d r a w.

ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT

C arlos F . L u ce ro C i rcui t J udge