T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe doctr i nes of * law o f th e c a se , res ju d ica ta, a n d c o llate ra l es to p p e l. Itm a yb e c ited , h o w e v e r, f o r its per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t entw i th Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 and 10th C i r . R . 32. 1. A ft er exami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, thi s panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l yt o gr ant th e p a rt ie s ’ r e q u e s t f

o r a d e c is io n o n th e b ri e f s w ith o u t o ra l a rg u m e n t. See Fed. R . A pp. P. 34( f) ; 10th C i r . R . 34. 1( G ) . T he ca s e i s ther efor e or der ed s ubm i t t ed w i thoutor al a rg u m e n t. 

## F I LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### F e b r u ar y 8, 2007 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, v. CA RL OS HE RN ANDE Z - DE J E S US D e f e n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 06- 2128 ( D. C. No . CR - No . 0 5 - 2 4 6 5 M V) ( N ew M exi co)

OR DER AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e Mc WI L L I A MS , S e n io r C ir c u it J u d g e , AN DE RS ON , Seni orC i r cui tJ udge, and BROR BY , Seni orC i r cui tJ udge. C ar l os H ernandez - D e J es us ( the def endant ) , w as char ged i n a one c ounti ndi ctm ent fi l ed i n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe D i s tr i ctof N ew M exi co, w i th R e- entryof a D e p o rt e d A lie n in v io la tio n o f 8 U .S .C . § § 1 3 2 6 (a )( 1 ) a n d (2 ) a n d 1 3 2 6 (b )( 2 ). P u r s u a n tt o a p l e a a g r e e me n twi th th e g o v e rn me n t , th e d e f e n d a n tp l e d g u i l tyt o th e c r i me c h a rg e d . A s a p a rt o f

th e p le a a g re e m e n t, d e f e n d a n t w a iv e d , in te ra lia , m a n yo f h is cons t i tut i onal r i ght s , butdi d notw ai ve hi s r i ghtt o appea l the s ent ence w hi ch he l at er2

r ece i ved. T he mat t erw as then r efe rr ed t o the pr obat i on depart m entfora Pr es ent ence R ep o rt(P S R ). T h e P S R s e td e f

e n d a n t ’ s b a s e o f

f e n s e l e v e l a t8 a n d th e n , p u r s u a n tt o U. S . S . G. 2L 1. 2( b) ( 1) ( A ) , i ncr eas ed thatl evel by16 l evel s , i . e. , t o 24 l evel s , bas ed on the fa ctt hat th e d e f e n d a n t h a d b e e n p re v io u slyd e p o rte d f ro m th e U n ited S tate s to M e x ico a f ter h is con vict i on for a fel on yoff ense t hat w as a “cri m e of v i olence. ” T he P S R al so r ecomm ended thatdefe ndant ’ s offe ns e l evel be r educe d bythr ee l evel s forhi s acc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i ty , s ett i ng hi s adj us t ed off ens e l evel at21. T he PSR r ecomm ended the defe ndant ’ s cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egorybe s etatI I I . T he U . S. S. G . s etthe gui del i ne r ange foran off

ens e l evel of 21 and a cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryof I I I at46 t o 57 m onths im p riso n m e n t. A s w e under s t and the r ecor d, nei therthe def endantnorthe governm entfi l ed any

“ o b jec tio n s” to th e P S R . H o w e v e r, p rio r to se n ten c in g , the d e f e n d a n t’s c o u n se l d id f

ile w i th the di s tr i ctcourta Sent enci ng M emora ndum i n w hi ch he, on the bas i s of U ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) , as ked the di s tr i ctcourtt o i m pos e a s ent ence of “l es s than 46 mont hs , ” the mi ni m um s ent ence underthe s ent enci ng gui del i nes . A tthe ti m e o f d ef

en d an t’ s sen tenc ing , the g u idelines , u n d er B ooker , w er e onl yadvi s ory , and n o t m a n d a to ry . It w a s c o u n se l’s c o n ten tio n th a t a s e n ten c e o f les s th a n 4 6 m o n th s w o u ld b e “ re a so n a b le” u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ) . In su p p o rt o f h is “ re a so n a b le” a rg u m e n t, couns el s t at ed thatthe 16 l evel i ncr eas e of de fenda nt ’ s bas e off ens e l evel w as , undert he c ir c u m s ta n c e s , “ e x c e s s iv e ” a n d th a t a n yin c re a s e s h o u ld b e o n ly 8 le v e ls a n d n o t 1 6 .3

( W i th an off

ens e l evel of 13, and a c r i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryof I I , the gui del i nes s e n te n c in g ra n g e w o u ld h a v e b e e n 1 5 to 2 1 m o n th s im p ri s o n m e n t.) T he g ov ernm ent fi l ed a respon se t o d efen dan t ’s requestthat he be sentenced to l ess than 46 mont hs . A tthe out s etof thatr es pons e, the governm ents t at ed that , al l thi ngs c o n s i d e r e d , 4 6 mo n th s i mp r i s o n me n two u l d b e a “ r e a s o n a b l e ” s e n t e n c e u n d e r1 8 U. S . C. § 3 5 5 3 (a ). A t th e sa m e tim e , the g o v e rn m e n t sta ted th a t it“ w ill n o t o p p o se a d e p a rtu re to a cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryof Level I I . ” A ts ent enci ng, the di s tr i ctcourtagr eed w i th couns el thatdefe ndant ’ s cr i m i nal h is to ry c a te g o ry sh o u ld b e II a n d n o t I II , a s h a d b e e n re c o m m e n d e d in th e P S R . H ow ever , the di s tr i ctcourtdecl i ned t o l ow erdefe ndant ’ s adj us t ed off ens e l evel fr om 21 to 1 3 , as su g g e ste d b yd e f e n d a n t’s c o u n se l. T h e n th e d istric t co u rt, ac tin g o n th e b a sis thatan off

ens e l evel of 21, coupl ed w i th a cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryof I I , r es ul t i ng i n an ad v isoryg u ideline ra n g e o f 4 1 to 5 1 m o n ths, co n clud ed that there sh o u ld b e a d o w n w ard d e p a rt u re f

ro m th a t g u id e lin e ra n g e a n d im p o s e d a s e n te n c e o f 3 6 m o n th s im p ri s o n m e n t. I n s o doi ng, the di s tr i ctcourti ndi cat ed thats uch, i n i t s vi ew , comport ed w i th the r eas onabl enes s r equi r ementof 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) . C ouns el , atthe r eques tof the defe ndant , then fi l ed a t i m el ynot i ce of appea l , the def

endanti ndi cat i ng t o couns el thathe w i s hed t o chal l enge the l ength of hi s 36- m onth s ent ence . I ti s i n t hi s gener al s ett i ng thatthe def endant ’ s couns el has fi l ed i n thi s courta br i ef pur s uantt o A n d e rs v . C a lif o rn ia , 386 U . S. 738 ( 1967) , and a mot i on t o w i thdr aw as couns el . I n hi s br i ef c ouns el s t at es thataft era r evi ew of the r ecor d i n the ca s e,4

a p p e llan t’s a p p e a l is f

riv o lo u s a n d sh o u ld b e d ism iss e d , an d f u rth e r th a t h e b e a llo w e d to w i thdr aw . W e agr ee. I n A n d e rs , s u

p r a , the S up rem e C ou rtspok e as foll ow s:

. . . if co u n sel find s h is case to b e w h o ll yfrivo lou s, af ter a co n scien ti o u s ex am ination o f it , h e sh o u ld ad v ise th e c o u rt a n d re q u e st p e rm iss io n to w ith d ra w . T h a t re q u e st m u st, h o w e v e r, b e a c c o m p a n ied b ya b rie f re f e rrin g to a n yth in g in the r ecor d t hatm i ghtar guabl ys uppor tthe appe al . A copyof c o u n s e l ’ s b r i e f

s h o u l d b e f

u rn i s h e d th e i n d i g e n ta n d t i me al l ow ed hi m t o r ai s e anypoi nt s thathe choos es ; the court - - not couns el –then pr ocee ds , aft era ful l exami nat i on of al l the p ro c e e d in g s , to d e c id e w h e th e r t h e c a s e is w h o lly f ri v o lo u s . I f i ts o fi nds i tm aygr antcouns el ’ s r eques tt o w i thdr aw and d ism iss th e a p p ea l i n so fa r as f ed era l r eq u ir em en ts are conce r ned, orpr ocee d t o a dec i s i on on the mer i t s , i f s t at e l aw so requi res . I d. at744. Pur s uantt o ourr eadi ng of A n d e rs , s u

p r a , i n U

n itedS ta tes v . Sn itz , 3 4 2 F .3 d 1 1 5 4 , 11 57 (10t h C i r. 20 03 ), w e spok e as foll ow s:

T he bas i c pr i nci pl e under l y i ng the ci t ed ca s es i s that , as i de fr om w hen an appel l antel ect s t o pr ocee d p r o s e , everydi r ect cr i m i nal appea l m us tbe br i efe d on the mer i t s bycouns el and deci ded ac cor di ngl ybythe courtunl es s , aft era thor ough r evi ew of al l pert i nentpr ocee di ngs , the appe al i s det erm i ned i ni t i al l ybycouns el and then i ndepende nt l ybythe courtt o be w h o lly f ri v o lo u s . S e e g e n e r a lly Sm ith v . R o b b in s , 52 8 U. S. 259, 279- 80 ( di s cus s i ng and appl y i ng C our t ’ s pr es ent under s t andi ng of i t s ‘ chi ef c as es i n thi s ar ea, ’ i ncl udi ng A nders , P ens on , and McC oy. I n thats ame cas e, at1158, ci t i ng Mc C o y v . C o u rt o

f Ap p e a ls o f W isc . D ist. 1, 48 6 U . S . 42 9, 43 8-39 (19 88 ), w e t hen spok e as foll ow s:5 A s forthe pr ofes s i onal r es pons i bi l i t i es of couns el , the a p p e llate law y e r m u st m a ste r th e trial re c o rd , tho ro u g h ly r es ear ch the l aw , and exe r ci s e j udgm enti n i dent i fy i ng the ar gum ent s thatm aybe adva nced on appeal . . . . O nl yaft er s uch an e val uat i on has l ed couns el t o the conc l us i on thatthe appea l i s ‘ w hol l yfr i vol ous ’ i s couns el j us t i fi ed i n m aki ng a m ot i on t o w i thdr aw . T hi s i s the ce ntr al t eac hi ng of A nd ers. Mc C o y , 486 U . S. at438- 39. A n d f in a lly, i n Sni t

zat1158 , w e t hen spok e as foll ow s: T he court ’ s obl i gat i on does notend once i tconcl udes thatcouns el r evi ew ed the r ecor d and found no e rr or . B eca us e i ti s ‘ the court - not c o u n se l’ th a t u lti m a tely‘d e c id e s w h e th e r th e c a se is w h o lly frivo lou s, ’ A nd ers, 386 U . S. at744, couns el ’ s as s es s m enttr i gger s the f in a l re sp o n sib ili tyo f

th e c o u rt, w h ich m u st ‘itse lf c o n d u c t a f

u ll e x a m in a tio n o f

a ll th e p ro c e e d in g [ s] to d e c id e w h e th e r th e c a se is w h o ll yfrivo lou s. ’ P e n so n v . O h io , 488 U . S. 75, 80 ( 1988) ( quot i ng A nd ers , 3 8 6 U . S . at 74 4 ). W e conc l ude thati n t he i ns t antcas e, couns el forthe def endanthas fol l ow ed the t eac hi ng of Sn itz . D isch arg ing o u r resp o n sibil ityu n d er Sn itz , bas ed on a f ul l exami nat i on of the r ecor d befor e us , and a c ons i der at i on of the A nd ers b r i e f f i l e d b yc o u n s e l , we concl ude thatther e ar e no non- fr i vol ous i s s ues upon w hi ch the def endanthas a bas i s for a p p e a l. U

n ite d S ta te s v . C a ld e r o n , 4 2 8 F . 3 d 9 2 8 , 9 3 0 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). A ppeal di s m i s s ed and mot i on t o w i thdr aw gr ant ed. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt Ro b e r tH. M c W i l l i a ms Seni orC i r cui tJ udge