A ft erexami ni ng appel l ant ’ s br i ef a nd the appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has * det erm i ned unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he d e te rm in a tio n o f

th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R. Ap p . P . 3 4 ( a ) ( 2 ) a n d 1 0 th Ci r . R. 34. 1( G ) . T he ca s e i s t her efor e s ubm i t t ed w i thoutor al ar gum ent . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, orcol l at er al es t oppel . T he courtgener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; nevert hel es s , an or derand j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he te rm s a n d c o n d itio n s o f 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 6 .3 . 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Ju ly5,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt 

### UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

T E N T H C IRC 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. RA CH EL CH AV EZ, D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 05- 1144 ( D . C . N o . 0 4 - C R - 3 4 0 - W M) ( C ol or ado)



### ORD ERAN D J UDG M EN T * B efor e M UR P HY , S EY M OUR , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es. R ache l C havez pl ed gui l t yt o m aki ng fal s e s t at ement s i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 1001 and w as s ent ence d t o fi ve y ear s of pr obat i on and r es t i tut i on paym ent s of $17, 636. 00. She now s eeks t o chal l enge he rconvi ct i on and s ent ence . C ouns el forM s . C havez fi l ed a br i ef pur s uantt o A n d e rs v . C a lif o rn ia ,- 2-

386 U . S. 738 ( 1967) , not i ng t her e di d notexi s tanynon- fr i vol ous i s s ues for a p p e a l an d se e k in g p e rm iss io n to w ith d ra w . W e e x e rc ise ju risd ictio n p u rsu a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 , g ra n t co u n se l’s m o tio n to w ith d ra w , an d d ism iss th e a p p e a l. M s. C hav ez w as charged in a fou r count i nd i ct m ent w i th m aking fals e sta tem e n ts in v io latio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 0 0 1 . In D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 4 , sh e e n ter e d in to a w ritten p lea a g re e m e n t w h e re b ysh e a g re e d to p lea d g u iltyto o n e o f th e c o u n ts agai ns theri n excha nge fort he governm ent ’ s agr eementt o di s m i s s the r emai ni ng cou nts and recom m end a sent ence a tthe b ott om of the gu i deli ne rang e. M s. C h av ez u n d erstoo d that b yp lead ing g u il tysh e w as g iving u p h er righ ts t o a jury t r i al , t o t he pr es um pt i on of i nnocenc e, t o bei ng found gui l tybypr oof bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt , t o herr i ghtt o confr ontw i tnes s es , t o the r i ghtt o be fr ee f r om compel l ed s el f- i ncr i m i nat i on, and t o compul s orypr oces s . She adopt ed the r eci t at i on of the fa ct s s etouti n t he pl ea a gr eementas the fa ctual bas i s forher pl ea a nd w as i nform ed of the pena l t i es forheroffe ns e. M s . C havez w as s ent ence d on A pr i l 19, 2005, t o fi ve y ear s pr obat i on and no j ai l t i m e, and re stitu tio n p a ym e n ts o f $ 1 7 ,6 3 6 .0 0 . H e r se n ten c e fe ll at th e b o tto m o f th e z e ro to s i x m ont h r ange of

perm i s s i bl e s ent ence s forhercr i m e. M s . C havez fi l ed a t i m el ynot i ce of

appea l , as s ert i ng herw i s h t o chal l enge he rs ent ence . I n t he A nd ers br i ef, couns el not es thatbeca us e M s . C havez pl ed gui l ty , “the onl ypos s i bl e ave nues forappea l w oul d be i rr egul ar i t i es i n the gui l typl ea, or s ent enci ng err or s . ” A pl t . B r . at4. C ouns el fi r s tr eas oned ther e w er e no gr ounds- 3-

to c h a llen g e M s. C h a v e z ’ g u iltyp lea b e c a u se it w a s k n o w in g , v o lu n tar y , an d f u lly compl i ed w i t h F ED . R. C R IM . P . 1 1 . See als o Uni t ed Stat es v. G igot , 147 F. 3d 1193, 1197 ( 10t h C i r . 1998) ( gui l typl ea mustbe know i ng, i nt el l i gentand vol unt ary ) . C ouns el as s ert ed thatbeca us e M s . C havez r ece i ved the mi ni m um s ent ence r equi r ed bys t atut e forherpl ea, admi t t ed t o the fa ct s s uppor t i ng that s e n te n c e , a n d th e d is tr ic t c o u rt e n g a g e d in a f u ll e x a m in a tio n o f

th e 1 8 U .S .C . § 3553( a) fac t or s i n t he cour s e of s ent enci ng her , t her e w as no bas i s t o chal l enge h er se n tenc e p u rsua n t t o eith er B lakel y v. Was hi ngt on , 542 U . S. 296 ( 2004) , or Uni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 5 4 3 U .S . 2 2 0 (2 0 0 5 ). M s. C hav ez has n ot r espon ded t o h er att orney ’s A nd ers br i ef, and the governm enthas l i kew i s e dec l i ned t o fi l e a r es pons e. Pur s uantt o A nd ers , w e m ust co n d u ct “a fu ll ex am ination o f a ll the p roc ee d ing s” to d eterm ine if M s. C h av ez ’s appea l i s w hol l yfr i vol ous . 386 U . S. at744. T he r ecor d i ndi cat es M s . C havez w as f u ll yaw are o f h er righ ts an d o f th e im p ac t of h er g u il typ lea. R ec . , v o l. I, doc. 18, 19. T her e i s no i ndi cat i on thatherpl ea s uffe r ed fr om i rr egul ar i t i es or w as acc ept ed i n der ogat i on of the r equi r ement s of F ED . R. C R IM . P . 11 . B ecause M s . C havez admi t t ed t o t he amountof l os s us ed t o es t abl i s h hers ent ence , and b e c a u s e s h e r e c e i v e d t h e m i n i m u m s e n t e n c e fo rh e rc r i m e , a n y B lakel y ar gum ent i s pr ecl uded. Fi nal l y , w hi l e s he w as s ent ence d aft ert he Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n B ooker , t her e exi s tno gr ounds forhert o chal l enge he rs ent ence for u n re a s o n a b le n e s s w ith re fe re n c e to th e fa c to rs la id o u t in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ).- 4-

See Booker , 543 U . S. at261. T he s ent enci ng t r ans cr i ptm akes cl earthe di s tr i ct cou rtgav e prope r consi derat i on t o § 35 53 (a) ’s st atutoryfact ors i n g i ving M s. C h a v e z th e lo w e s t s e n te n c e p o s s ib le fo r t h e o ffe n s e . B as ed on ourful l exami nat i on of the pr ocee di ngs , w e conc l ude ther e ar e no non- fr i vol ous i s s ues forappea l . A ccor di ngl y , w e D I SM I SS the appe al and GRANT c o u n s e l’ s re q u e s t to w ith d ra w . ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT St ephani e K . Seym our C i r cui tJ udge