T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe * 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 . I tm aybe ci t ed, h o w e v e r, fo r its p e rsu a siv e v a lu e c o n sis ten t w ithF e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C i r . R . 32. 1. A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and the appe l l at e r ecor d, thi s thr ee-j udge ** panelhas det erm i ned unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notbe of mat er i al a ss ista n c e in th e d e ter m in a tio n o f th is a p p e a l. S e e F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a u 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. FI LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als

Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### S e p t e m b e r 20, 2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court 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. ELFI DO CH AV EZ- M AR TI NEZ, D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 07- 2000 ( D. C. No s . 0 6 - CR- 2 5 8 - J C)

(D .N .M .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e KELLY , M UR P HY , andO’ BRI EN , C i rcui tJudg es. ** D efe ndant - A ppel l antE l fi do C havez - M art i nez pl eade d gui l tyt o r eentryof a deport ed al i en pr evi ous l yconvi ct ed of a n aggr avat ed fe l ony . See 8 U . S. C . §§ 13 26 (a) (1) , (2) & (b) (2) . H e w as sent enced t o tw enty -s even m on ths’ i m pr i s onm entand tw o y ear s ’ uns upervi s ed r el eas e. O n appea l , M r . C havez M a rtin e z ’s c o u n se l h a s filed a n A n d e rs b rie f b e c a u se h e id e n tifie d n o p o ten tially- 2 -

m e ri to ri o u s is s u e s fo r a p p e a l. S e e A n d e rs v . C a lifo rn ia , 3 8 6 U .S . 7 3 8 (1 9 6 7 ). M r. C h a v e z -M a rtin e z w a s s e rv e d w ith a c o p yo f th e A n d e rs b rie f

a n d h a s fa iled to resp o n d . O u r j u ri sd ict ion arises u n d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 an d 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 7 4 2 (a), a n d w e d is m is s th e ap p e a l a n d g ra n t c o u n s e l’ s m o tio n to w ith d ra w . Fol l ow i ng M r . C havez - M art i nez’ s gui l typl ea, a pr es ent ence i nves t i gat i on r eport( PSR ) w as pr epar ed. T he PSR cal cul at ed the appl i cabl e G ui del i ne s ent enci ng r ange t o be tw enty - s even t o thi rty - thr ee months ’ i m pr i s onm ent . A tthe sen tenc ing h ea ri n g , M r. C h av ez -M arti n ez req u ested that the d istri ct co u rtv ary from the b ott om of the G uidel i ne rang e and sent ence h i m t o tw enty -one m on ths’ i m pr i s onm ent , w hi ch w oul d have be en equi val entt o the s ent ence i m pos ed had M r. C h a v e z -M a rtin e z b e e n se n ten c e d a f tere n ter in g a p lea p u rsu a n t to th e fa sttr a c kp ro g ra m . M r. C h a v e z -M a rt in e z ’s c o u n s e l a t th e s e n te n c in g h e a ri n g , M r. B us t amant e, cl ai m ed thatM r . C havez - M art i nez a s ked pr i orcouns el t o ent era fas t - tr ack pl ea. Forr eas ons unknow n t o M r . B us t amant e, the governm entr efus ed t o gr antfas t - tr ack and pr ocee ded w i th an i ndi ctm ent . A ts ent enci ng, the di s tr i ct courtr efus ed t o gr antM r . C havez - M art i nez’ s r eques tfora var i ance . W e agr ee w i th M r . C havez - M art i nez’ s couns el thatther e exi s tno pot ent i al l ym er i t or i ous i s s ues on appea l . Fi r s t , ther e i s no r eas on t o bel i eve that M r . C havez - M art i nez’ s pl ea w as anythi ng butknow i ng and vol unt ary . See B r ady v. U ni t ed St at es , 397 U . S. 742, 755- 56 ( 1970) . N ext , the di s tr i ctcourtw as not perm i tt ed t o t ake i nt o acc ountthe ava i l abi l i tyof the fa s t - tr ack pr ogr am t o other- 3 -

c ri m in a l d e fe n d a n ts in fa s h io n in g a re a s o n ab le s e n te n c e u n d e r th e 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ) fa c to rs, s e e U n ited S tate s v . M a rtin e z -T rujil lo , 4 6 8 F .3 d 1 2 6 6 , 1 2 6 9 (1 0 th C i r . 2006) , and M r . C havez - M art i nez ha s no enfor ceabl e r i ghtt o part i ci pat e i n the fa st-tra c kp ro g ra m . F in a lly , M r. C h a v e z -M a rtin e z d idn o t lo d g e a n o bjec tio n to anyfac t s cont ai ned w i thi n the PSR , s ee Fed. R . C r i m . P. 32( i ) ( 3) ( A ) ( al l ow i ng a courtats ent enci ng t o “ac ceptanyundi s put ed port i on of the pr es ent ence r eportas a fin d in g o f

fa c t”) ; h is s e n ten c e fe ll at th e lo w e n d o f th e p re su m p tiv e ly r eas onabl e— and corr ect l ycal cul at ed— G ui del i ne r ange and no fac t s exi s tt o r ebut the p resu m p ti o n , see R it a v . U n it ed S tat es, 12 7 S . C t. 2 4 5 6 , 2 4 6 2 -63 (20 0 7 ); U ni t ed St at es v. K r i s t l , 437 F. 3d 1050, 1055 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ; and the s ent ence i m pos ed w as adequa t el yr eas oned, s ee U ni t ed St at es v. C havez - C al der on, – F. 3d

– , 2 0 0 7 W L 2 1 7 1 3 6 3 , at * 2 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 7 ). A c c o rd in g ly , w e D IS M IS S th is ap p e a l a n d GR ANT c o u n s e l ’ s mo t i o n t o wi th d r a w. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt P au l J. K ell y , Jr. C i r cui tJ udge