* The case is unanimously ordered submitted withoutoral argument

pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The Court g enerally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and ju dgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

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

### MAY 23 2002 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.JORGE ALFREDO GOMEZMARTINEZ,

Defendant - Appellant. No. 01-2325 (D.C. No. CR-01-403-BB) (D. New Mexico)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before TACHA , Chief Circuit Judge, EBEL , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges. Defendant-Appellant Jorge Alfredo Gomez-Martinez entered a blind guilty plea to one count of illegally reentering the Unite d States after having been convicted of an aggravated felony and deported, 8 U .S.C. § 1326(a)(1)–(2), (b)(2), and was sentenced to forty-six months’ impr isonment, twenty-four months’ supervised release, and a $100 special assessment.-2-

On appeal, the federal public defender appointed to represent defendant filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw as counsel. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967) (permitting counsel who considers an appeal to be wholly frivolous to advise the court of that fact, request permission to withdraw from the case, and submit a brief referrin g to portions of the record that arguably support the appeal). Pursuant to Anders , a copy of counsel’s brief was mailed to defendant, and he was allowed three month s to raise any points he chose. Defendant did not do so. We note that defe ndant is twenty-six years old, first came to the United States at age eleven, comp leted the ninth grade at an El Paso, Texas school, and reportedly obtained a GED while previously incarcerated. Based on “a full examination of all the proceedings ,” id. , we determine that this appeal is without merit. The record affirmati vely shows that defendant’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary. See Parke v. Raley , 506 U.S. 20, 28 (1992). At the plea hearing, defendant indicated t o the district court, through an interpreter, that he understood he was under oath, that he had received a copy of the pending indictment, that he had fully discussedthe charges with his attorney, that he did not have any problems at all with couns el’s advice, and that he had no unanswered questions about “what this whole proceed ing is about” (2 R. at 4). Moreover, defendant was fully advised of his rights should he choose to proceed to trial and of the consequences of his plea—i.e., that he could be sentenced to-3-

twenty years’ imprisonment, a $250,000 fine, and three years’ supervised release. He was told that his ultimate punishment could exce ed any estimate his attorney may have given him. We have also carefully reviewed the district court’ s sentencing calculations and find no legal or factual error. For these reasons, we AFFIRM . The motion to withdraw is GRANTED
. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Carlos F. Lucero Circuit Judge