* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estop pel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nev ertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condition s of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

1 We note that the government did not file a respons e brief. 

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

### April 24, 2006
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 05-1157 DANIEL VENCES-FLORES, Defendant-Appellant. (D.C. No. 04-CR-00420-LTB) (D. Colorado)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before HENRY, BRISCOE, andO’BRIEN , Circuit Judges.

Defendant Daniel Vences-Flores pled guilty to illeg al reentry subsequent to deportation for an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2), and was sentenced to fifty-seven months’ imprisonment. We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affir m Vences-Flores’ sentence. 1 Vences-Flores pled guilty, with the benefit of a pl ea agreement, to the2 After Vences-Flores entered his guilty plea, but p rior to the issuance of his

presentence report, the Supreme Court decided Unite d States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220, 245 (2005), which rendered the Sentencing Guid elines advisory, rather than mandatory. 2 single-count indictment. 2 In exchange for his guilty plea, the government a greed to recommend a sentence at the bottom of the applic able guideline range, and to move for an additional one-point reduction based on acceptance of responsibility. The presentence report (PSR), which took into consi deration the government’s agreement to move for an additional one-point reduc tion for acceptance of responsibility, calculated an offense level 21 and a criminal history category IV, resulting in an advisory guideline range of 57-71 m onths. Vences-Flores filed a sentencing memorandum arguing that he should not ha ve received two criminal history points for committing the instant offense w hile on probation, and that several mitigating circumstances warranted a senten ce below the advisory guideline range. At sentencing, the district courtaddressed each of VencesFlores’ arguments. In particular, the district cou rt agreed not to include the two challenged criminal history points in its guideline calculation, but stated that Vences-Flores’ remaining criminal history points st ill placed him at Category IV. The district court then discussed the sentencing fa ctors contained in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and sentenced Vences-Flores to fifty-seven months of imprisonment. Counsel for Vences-Flores has filed a brief pursuan t to Anders v.3 Vences-Flores’ counsel advises us that Vences-Flor es does not wish to challenge

the validity of his guilty plea. 3 California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Anders holds that “if counsel finds his case to be wholly frivolous, after a conscientious examinat ion of it, he should so advise the court and request permission to withdraw.” Id. at 744. Upon receiving an Anders brief, we are required to conduct “a full examinat ion of all the proceedings” in order “to decide whether the case i s wholly frivolous.” Id. The Anders brief filed by Vences-Flores’ counsel identifies o ne appellate issue: whether Vences-Flores’ sentence is reasonable. 3 We now review sentences for “reasonableness,” looki ng to the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) for guidance. See United States v. Morales-Chaires , 430 F.3d 1124, 1128 (10th Cir. 2005). “[A] sentenc e that is properly calculated under the Guidelines is entitled to a rebuttable pr esumption of reasonableness. This is a deferential standard that either the defe ndant or the government may rebut by demonstrating that the sentence is unreaso nable when viewed against the other factors delineated in § 3553(a).” United States v. Kristl , 437 F.3d 1050, 1054 (10th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). At sentencing, Vences-Flores did not object to the PSR’s calculation of his guideline range, and he specifically agreed with th e district court that his criminal history category would not be impacted if the distr ict court did not consider the4

two disputed criminal history points. The districtcourt thoroughly considered the § 3553(a) factors, and responded to each of Vences- Flores’ arguments for a sentence below the advisory guideline range. We co nclude that there is nothing in the record to suggest that Vences-Flores’ senten ce, which was at the bottom of the advisory guideline range, was unreasonable. AFFIRMED. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. Entered for the Court
Mary Beck Briscoe Circuit Judge