*This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicataand collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment 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 

### OCT 21 1998 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

__________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. PIYARATH S. KAYARATH, a/k/a/ Be, a/k/a Be Nouanley, Defendant-Appellant. No. 98-3084 (D. Kan.) (D.Ct. No. 94-CR-10123-02)

____________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before SEYMOUR, BRORBY , and BRISCOE , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The c ase is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.-2-

Mr. Kayarath entered a guilty plea to two counts of robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951, and two counts of carrying or usi ng a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). He received a sentence of 330 months, which was later reduced to 240 months. See United States v. Kayarath , 131 F.3d 152, 1997 WL 755402 (10th Cir. Dec. 8, 1 997). Mr. Kayarath appeals his conviction asserting his guilty pleas were not voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently entered. We exercise j urisdiction and affirm the judgment of the district court.
We review the question of whether a plea is volunta ry de novo
. See United States v. Rhodes , 913 F.2d 839, 843 (10th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1122 (1991). The record clearly sets out the circumstan ces surrounding Mr. Kayarath’s disputed guilty pleas. Mr. Kayarath entered a plea agreement of guilty to the charges and agreed to testify against his co-defend ants in exchange for an agreement by the Government to file a motion to dep art his sentence downward. Mr. Kayarath signed and filed a petition to enter a plea of guilty. At the plea hearing, the district court advised Mr. Kayarath of his rights, addressed both the Plea Agreement and the Petition to Change Plea in m inute detail and fully advised Mr. Kayarath that if he entered a guilty plea, he c ould not appeal his conviction. The district court obtained Mr. Kayarath’s factual statement concerning his-3-

participation in the crimes charged, accepted Mr. K ayarath’s pleas of guilty to each count, and ultimately determined Mr. Kayarath “freely, voluntarily and knowingly” entered his plea of guilty to the charge d offenses and accepted his pleas of guilty. Taken together, the undisputed ci rcumstances surrounding Mr. Kayarath’s guilty pleas are sufficient to show he k nowingly and intelligently made an informed choice when he pled guilty. See, e.g., Rhodes , 913 F.2d at 843.
Mr. Kayarath’s counsel commendably and correctly fi led a brief in this court pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating no factual basis exists to set aside Mr. Kayarath’s plea and c onviction.
In an abundance of caution we have reviewed: (1) t he Petition to Enter Plea of Guilty and Order Entering Plea; (2) the Ple a Agreement; and (3) the transcripts of the plea proceeding, where Mr. Kayar ath entered his guilty pleas, and the sentencing proceeding. We find no error an d can only conclude Mr. Kayarath’s pleas were voluntarily and freely entere d with full knowledge. The record contains no basis for Mr. Kayarath to asserthe did not act voluntarily or without proper understanding.
Counsel for Mr. Kayarath has requested leave to wit hdraw from further-4-

representation of Mr. Kayarath. This motion is gra nted.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Entered by the Court: WADE BRORBY United States Circuit Judge