A ft erexami ni ng the br i ef a nd appel l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T h is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t is 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 . T he courtgener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or derand j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. 

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

### M ay26,2006 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. 05- 8118 v. D . W y om i ng RO NAL D C OZ AD,

D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. ( D. C. No . 0 5 - CR- 1 5 0 - B)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e T AC HA , HA RTZ , and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es. R onal d C ozad w as s ent ence d t o 60 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm entaft erpl eadi ng gui l tyt o a drug- cons pi r acychar ge. H i s couns el has fi l ed an A nd ers b ri e f, s ee A n d e rs v . C a lif

o rn ia , 3 8 6 U .S . 7 3 8 (1 9 6 7 ), a n d m o v e d to w ith d ra w a s c o u n s e l. T he br i ef not es onl yone pos s i bl e i s s ue forappea l

— the al l eged e rr ori n as s i gni ng a cr i m i nal - hi s t orypoi ntfora pr i orbad- chec k convi ct i on— and expl ai ns w hyi thas- 2-

no m er i t . A ft err evi ew i ng the r ecor d, w e agr ee thatther e ar e no mer i t or i ous iss u e s fo r a p p e a l, gr a n t th e m o tio n to w ith d ra w , an d d ism iss th e a p p e a l. O n A ugus t12, 2005, M r . C ozad pl eade d gui l tyi n the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ct C o u rt fo r th e D istric t o f W y o m in g to o n e c o u n t o f c o n sp ira c yto p o ss e ss w ith i n t e n tt o d i s tr i b u t e a n d t o d i s tr i b u t e me th a mp h e t a mi n e , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 2 1 U. S . C. § § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) , ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B) , a n d 8 4 6 . Th e o r i g i n a l p r e s e n t e n c e r e p o r t( P S R) d e ter m in e d th a t h is c rim in a l-h isto ryc a teg o ryw a s II , o n th e b a sis o f o n e c rim in a lhi s t orypoi ntforeac h of thr ee pr i orconvi ct i ons . T aki ng i nt o acc ountt he s t atut orym andat orym i ni m um s ent ence of fi ve y ear s , t he PSR cal cul at ed the app ropri at e G uidel i nes range fo r M r. C ozad ’s sent ence to be 6 0 to 63 m on ths’ im p riso n m e n t. M r. C o z a d o bjec ted to b e in g a ss ig n e d c rim in a l-h isto ryp o in ts fo r tw o o f h is pri or conv i ct i on s: a bad -check co nv i ct i on and a D U I convict i on . T he respon se b yth e a u th o ro f

th e P S R c o n c e d e d t h e v a l i d i tyo f t h e o bj e c t i o n t o t h e DUI convi ct i on butcont i nued t o as s i gn a poi ntfort he bad- chec k convi ct i on, r es ul t i ng in a re v ise d c rim in a l-h isto rysc o re o f 2 . M r. C o z a d w ish e d to lo w e r h is c rim in a lh i s t o rys c o r e t o 1 t o b e e l i g i b l e fo rt h e “ s a fe tyv a l v e ” p r o v i d e d b y1 8 U. S . C. § 3 5 5 3 (f), w h ich p erm it s a se n tenc ing co u rtto d ep art be low a m an d atory m i ni m um i n cert ai n s i tuat i ons . A ts ent enci ng, how ever , t he di s tr i ctcourtr ej ect ed hi s obj ect i on t o count i ng the bad- chec k convi ct i on and ac cept ed the G ui del i nes- 3-

ra n g e c a lcu late d b yth e P S R . It i m p o se d a se n ten c e o f 6 0 m o n th s’ im p riso n m e n t, the mandat orym i ni m um . M r . C ozad t i m el yappea l ed. I n compl i ance w i th A nd ers , co u n se l p ro v id e d M r. C o z a d w ith a c o p yo f h is appel l at e br i ef. M r . C ozad ha s notfi l ed a pr o s e r epl y . W e ca n r eadi l ydi s pos e of th e o n e iss u e ra ise d in th e b rie f

— th e a lleg e d e rro r in a ss e ss in g o n e c rim in a lhi s t orypoi ntforM r . C ozad’ s bad- chec k convi ct i on. M r . C ozad w as char ged w i th i s s ui ng a bad c heck i n N ebr as ka i n 2000 and w as s ent ence d t o a y earof pr obat i on. H e now ar gues thathe s houl d nothave been gi ven a c r i m i nal - hi s t orypoi ntforthe convi ct i on beca us e he pl eade d no c o n tes t to a m isd e m e a n o r w ith a m a x im u m p e n a ltyo f six m o n th s’ im p riso n m e n t. A s h is co u n sel p o ints ou t, crim inal-historyp o ints are n o t aw ard ed fo r ev ery m i s demeanorconvi ct i on. U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i nes § 4A 1. 2( c) provides: Sent ence s foral l fel onyoffe ns es ar e count ed. Sent ence s for m i sdem eano r and pe t tyoffenses are coun t ed, excep tas fol l ow s: ( 1) Sent ence s forthe fol l ow i ng pr i oroffe ns es and offens es sim il ar to the m , b yw h atev er n am e the yare k n o w n , are count ed onl yi f ( A ) the s ent ence w as a t erm of pr obat i on of at l easton e y ear ora t erm of im pri sonm ent of atl east thi r tyday s , or( B ) the pr i oroffe ns e w as s i m i l art o an i ns t antoffe ns e:

. . . I ns uffi ci entfunds chec k

. . . .- 4-

B ut the ex em pti on for a l i st ed o ffen se does n ot appl y“i f . . . the sentence w as a t erm of pr obat i on of atl eas tone y ear . ” Id. B eca us e M r . C ozad r ece i ved a s ent ence of a y earof pr obat i on on the bad- chec k char ge, hi s convi ct i on w as t o be c o u n te d u n d e r t h e G u id e lin e s . See Uni t ed Stat es v. P er ezde D i os , 237 F. 3d 1192, 1199 ( 10th C i r . 2001) ( m i s demeanoroffe ns e w i th s ent ence of one y earof p ro b a tio n c o u n ted in c rim in a l h isto ry ); Un i t e dS ta t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 919 F. 2d 1451, 1457 ( 10th C i r . 1990) ( appl y i ng cr i m i nal - hi s t or ypoi ntt o offe ns e forw hi ch “a pr obat i on t erm of atl eas tone y earw as i m pos ed. ”) T h e r e a l s o b e i n g n o o th e re rr o ra p p a r e n ti n th e r e c o r d , we GR ANT c o u n se l’s m o tio n fo r w ith d ra w a l an d D IS M IS S th is a p p e a l. ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT H a rris L H a rtz C i r cui tJ udge