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. 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a 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. T h is or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of 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, fo r its per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t entw i t h Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 and 10th C i r . R . 32. 1. FI LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als

Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### O c t ob e r 19, 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. J UA N LO PEZ- GA M EZ, D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 07- 2016 ( D. C. No . CR- 0 5 - 2 2 6 6 J C) (D . N .M .)

OR DER AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e LU CE RO , HA RTZ , and GORS UCH , C i rcui tJudg es. Ju a n L o p e z -G a m e z p led g u iltyto o n e c o u n t o f p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to di s t r i but e 500 gr ams orm or e of a s ubs t ance cont ai ni ng m ethamphet ami ne. T he d istri ct co u rtsen tenc ed h im to 1 2 0 m o n ths im p ri so n m en t, fo ll o w ed b yfiv e y ea rs of uns upervi s ed r el eas e. O n appea l , M r . L opez- G amez’ s couns el fi l ed an A nd ers b ri e f a n d m o v e d to w ith d ra w a s c o u n s e l. S e e A n d e rs v . C a lif o rn ia , 386 U . S. 738- 2 -

( 1967) . M r . L opez- G amez s ubs equent l yfi l ed pr o s e a r es pons e cont endi ng that he di d notknow i ngl yand vol unt ar i l ypl ea gui l tybeca us e hi s w r i t t en pl ea agr eementw as ambi guous and mi s l eadi ng. T he governm entdecl i ned t o fi l e a br i ef. Fort he r eas ons s etfor t h bel ow , w e di s cern no m er i t or i ous i s s ues for a p p e a l, an d w e th e re fo re g ra n t th e m o tio n to w ith d ra w a n d d ism iss th is a p p e a l. * * * I n Sept ember2005, pol i ce found M r . L opez- G amez, al ong w i th hi s codefe ndantE l vi r a V i dal , i n pos s es s i on of a s ubs t ant i al quant i tyof m ethamphet ami ne, appar ent l ydes t i ned fordi s tr i but i on. Feder al pr os ecut or s fi l ed a o n e -c o u n t in d ictm e n t, ch a rg in g M r. L o p e z -G a m e z w ith p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to d is tr ib u te , in v io la tio n o f 2 1 U .S .C . § § 8 4 1 (a )( 1 ), ( b )( 1 )( A ) a n d 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 . T hatchar ge ca r r i es a s t atut or yr ange of puni s hm entof 10 y ear s t o l i fe im p riso n m e n t. R epr es ent ed byappoi nt ed couns el , M r . L opez- G amez negot i at ed a pl ea agr eementw i t h t he governm ent . U nderthe agr eement , M r . L opez- G amez admi t t ed gui l t , w ai ved hi s r i ghtt o a tr i al , w ai ved hi s r i ghtt o appea l both any convi ct i on and anys ent ence t hathe w oul d r ece i ve, and agr eed t o pr ovi de truthful and compl et e i nform at i on t o t he Pr obat i on O ffi ce. I n excha nge, the governm ent agr eed thati tw oul d notbr i ng anyaddi t i onal char ges bas ed on conduc tthen know n t o t he U . S. A t t or ney ’ s O ffi ce i n the D i s tr i ctof N ew M exi co, and the governm ents t i pul at ed thatM r . L opez- G amez w as ent i t l ed, underthe U ni t ed- 3 -

S t at es Sen t encing G uidel i nes (“G uidel i nes”), t o a tw o-l evel r edu ct i on t o h i s base o ffe n s e le v e l fo r b e in g o n ly a m in o r p a rt ic ip a n t, s ee U . S. S. G . § 3B 1. 2, and t o a th re e -l e v e l r e d u c tio n fo r a c c e p ta n c e o f re s p o n s ib ility, s e e id . § 3 E 1 . 1 . M o re i m por t ant l yperhaps , t he governm ents t i pul at ed thatM r . L opez- G amez m aybe e lig ib le fo r th e sa fe tyv a lv e p ro v isio n s in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (f), w h ich w o u ld enab l e t he d i stri ctcou rtt o sentence M r. L op ez-G am ez t o a G uidel i nes range les s t han the s t atut or ym i ni m um 10 y ear s , and w oul d al s o affor d M r . L opez- G amez an add i t i on al t w o-l evel r edu ct i on un der the G uidel i nes. In M a y2 0 0 6 , M r. L o p e z -G a m e z p led g u ilty , an d th e p a rties su b m itt e d th e ir p lea a g ree m en t t o the d istri ct co u rt . U n d er the G u idelines , M r. L o p ez -G am ez ’s c o n v ic tio n c a rr ie d a b a s e o ffe n s e le v e l o f 3 1 . See U . S. S. G . § 2D 1. 1. A ccount i ng fort he mi norpar t i ci pantand ac cept ance of r es pons i bi l i tyr educt i ons , the fi nal offe ns e l evel s ugges t ed byt he G ui del i nes w as 26. B eca us e of a pr i orcr i m i nal c o n v ic tio n , M r. L o p e z -G a m e z w a s c la s s ifie d a t c ri m in a l h is to ry c a te g o ry le v e l I . T hatt ot al offe ns e l evel and cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egorypr oduced a pr opos ed G ui del i nes s ent enci ng r ange of 63 t o 78 m onths i m pr i s onm ent . B utw i thoutthe benef i tof the Sect i on 3553( f) s afe tyval ve pr ovi s i on, the di s tr i ctcour tw oul d be r equi r ed t o s ent ence M r . L opez- G amez t o atl eas tthe s t atut orym i ni m um 120 m o n th s (1 0 y e a rs ). See U . S. S. G . § 5G 1. 1. E l i gi bi l i t yfora s afe t yval ve s ent ence r educt i on r equi r es , among ot her t hi ngs , t hatt he defendant“trut hful l ypr ovi de[] t o the G overnm ental l i nform at i on- 4 -

an d ev iden ce the d efen d an t has co n ce rnin g the o ffen se o r offe n ses th at w ere p art o f t h e s a me c o u r s e o f

c o n d u c to ro f

a c o mmo n s c h e me o rp l a n . ” 1 8 U. S . C. § 3 5 5 3 ( f ) ( 5 ) . Al t h o u g h t h e r e c o r d p r o v i d e s fe w d e t a i l s , i ts e e ms th a ta ts o me poi ntbefor e s ent enci ng, M r . L opez- G amez’ s compl i ance w i th thatr equi r ement came i nt o doubt . A tt he s ent enci ng hear i ng, M r . L opez- G amez’ s couns el expl ai ned thatanyfai l ur e t o be compl et el yfor thcomi ng w i th the governm entw as onl ya r es ul tof the “obs t i nacy ” of M s . V i dal ( the co- defe ndant ) and M r . L opezG amez’ s at t empt s t o pr ot ecther , butthatM r . L opez- G amez had al w ay s been tru th f u l a n d s h o u ld s till b e e lig ib le fo r t h e S e c tio n 3 5 5 3 (f) s a fe ty v a lv e . See Sent enci ng T r . at2- 3. T he di s t r i ctcourt , how ever , found M r . L opez- G amez i nel i gi bl e fort he s afe t yval ve, and s o s ent ence d hi m t o the s t atut or ym i ni m um 120 m o n th s. M r. L o p e z -G a m e z filed a tim e lyn o tice o f a p p e a l. * * * Pur s uantt o t he Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n A n d e rs v . C a lif o rn ia , a c o u rta p p o in ted d e fe n se c o u n se l m a y“ re q u e st p e rm iss io n to w ith d ra w [ f ro m a n a p p e a l] w her e couns el cons ci ent i ous l yexami nes a ca s e and de t erm i nes thatanyappea l w oul d be w hol l yfr i vol ous . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. C alder on , 4 2 8 F .3 d 9 2 8 , 9 3 0 (1 0 th C i r . 2005) ( ci t i ng A nd ers , 3 8 6 U .S . at 7 4 4 ). T h is p ro c e ss re q u ire s c o u n se l to s ubm i ta br i ef t o t he cl ient and the appe l l at e courti ndi cat i ng any pot ent i al appea l abl e i s s ues bas ed on the r ecor d. T he cl i en t m aythen choos e t o s ubm i tar gum ent s t o the court . T he [c ] our tm us tthen conduc t a f u ll ex am ination o f th e re co rd to d eterm ine w h ethe r de fe n d an t’ s cl ai m s ar e w hol l yfr i vol ous . I f the courtconcl udes after s uch anA s a pro se fi l i ng, w e gi ve s ol i ci t ous cons i der at i on t o M r . L opez- 1 G a m e z ’s re s p o n s e . See Van D eelen v. Johns on , __ F. 3d __ , 2007 W L 2309778, at*1 n. 1 ( 10t h C i r . 2007) - 5 - exami nat i on t hatt he appe al i s fr i vol ous , i tm aygr antcouns el ’ s m ot i on to w ith d ra w a n d m a yd ism iss th e a p p e a l. Id . ( ci t i ng A nd ers , 3 8 6 U . S . at 74 4 ). In hi s A nd ers br i ef, couns el forM r . L opez- G amez r epr es ent ed thatappea l in th is c a se w o u ld c o n c e iv a b lyb e m e rito rio u s o n lyif (1 ) th e w a iv e r o f

rig h t to appea l i n t he pl ea a gr eementw er e notval i d orappl i cabl e t o thi s appea l ; ( 2) the gui l t ypl ea w er e notvol unt ary ; or( 3) M r . L opez- G amez r ece i ved i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el . C ouns el s t at ed, how ever , thathe coul d fi nd no bas i s i n l aw o r fa ct fo r th ese arg u m en ts on d ir ec t app ea l. A d d it ion all y , w e u n d erstan d M r. L opez- G amez’ s r es pons e t o pr i nci pal l yecho poi nt( 2) , ar gui ng thatthe pl ea a g re e m e n t w a s a m b ig u o u s a n d m isle a d in g , an d th e re fo re h is g u iltyp lea a n d h is as s ent t o t he pl ea agr eement w er e not know i ng and vol unt ary . A ft erconduct i ng 1 a f u ll ex a m in a tio n o f

th e re c o rd , w e a g re e w ith c o u n se l th a t th e re is n o b a sis in l aw or factfor anyof these ar gu m ents . 1. C ouns el s t at es t hatM r . L opez- G amez w ai ved, i n hi s pl ea a gr eement , t he r i ghtt o appea l hi s convi ct i on ors ent ence , and thatappea l i n thi s cas e i s t hus for ecl os ed unl es s w e fi nd the w ai vert o be i nval i d. W e agr ee thats uch w ai verof a p p e a l r i g h t s ma ywe l l h a v e c o mp e l l e d u s t o s u mm a r i l yd i s mi s s th i s a p p e a l i f we w er e t o fi nd t he w ai verval i d and appl i cabl e undert he thr ee- pr ong anal y s i s s et- 6 -

for t h i n Uni t ed Stat es v. Hahn , 359 F. 3d 1315, 1324- 28 ( 10th C i r . 2004) ( en b a n c ). In th is in sta n c e , h o w e v e r, th e g o v e rn m e n t fa iled to a sk th is c o u rt to e n fo rc e th e a p p e a l w a iv e r a n d , b yso d o in g , h a s fo re g o n e th e o p p o rtu n ityto re c e iv e th e b e n e fit o f

th a t w a iv e r. See Calder on , 428 F. 3d at930- 31 ( “A l though t he governm enti s acc or ded fl exi bi l i tyi n the form of i t s r eques tforenfor cement o f a n a p p e a l w a iv e r, . . . the w a iv e r is w a iv e d w h e n th e g o v e rn m e n t u tterly neg l ect s t o invok e t he w ai ver i n thi s C ou rt . ”). A s such, w e are obli ged t o ad dress t he m eri t s of t he o t her cl ai m s r ai sed bycou nsel ’s A nd ers br i ef a nd byM r . L opezG am ez ’s resp o n se ra ther tha n d ism iss th e a p p ea l bas ed so lel yo n the w aive r. 2 . A v a l i d g u i l t y p l e a ( a n d p l e a a g r e e m e n t ) m u s tb e k n o w i n g l y, in te llig e n tly, a n d v o lu n ta ri ly m a d e . See Uni t ed Stat es v. G igot , 147 F. 3d 1193, 1 1 9 7 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 8 ); s ee als o Fed. R . C r i m . P. 11. M r . L opez- G amez ar gues th a t h is p lea a n d p lea a g re e m e n t ar e in v a lid b e c a u se th e a g re e m e n t m isle d h im into b eli ev ing that h e w o u ld rec eive a G u idelines sen tenc e b elow the s tatu tory m i ni m um 120 m ont hs , pur s uantt o the Sect i on 3553( f) s afe tyval ve. W e di s agr ee that the p lea a g ree m en t w as in an yw ayam b igu o u s ab o u t M r. L o p ez -G am ez ’s s ent enci ng pos s i bi l i t i es . T he agr eementr epea t edl ys peci fi ed thatM r . L opezG am ez w as su bject t o the p o ssibil ityo f b eing sen tenc ed p u rsua n t t o the s tatu tory m a n d a to ry m in im u m . See Pl ea A gr eement¶ 4 ( “The D efe ndantunder s t ands that t he mi ni m um and maxi m um penal tythe C our tcan i m pos e i s : a) i m pr i s onm entfor a p e rio d o f

T e n (1 0 ) y e a rs to L ife . . . . ” ); id . ¶ 5 ( “N otw i ths t andi ng [the- 7 -

G u id e lin e s], th e D e fe n d a n t f u llyu n d e rsta n d s th a t n o o n e c a n p re d ict w ith c e rta in tyw h a t se n ten c e th e C o u rt w ill im p o se .”); i d. ¶ 10 ( “[T] he D efe ndant under s t and[s ] t hatt he above s t i pul at i ons [r egar di ng offe ns e l evel r educt i ons and Sect i on 3553( f) s afe t yval ve el i gi bi l i ty ] ar e notbi ndi ng on the C our tand that w hethert he C ourtacc ept s t hes e s t i pul at i ons i s a mat t ers ol el yw i thi n the di s cr et i on of the C our t. . . . Fur ther , the D efe ndantunder s t ands and agr ees that t he C our tm aychoos e t o devi at e fr om the advi s orygui del i ne s ent ence . I n other w o rds, reg ard less o f a n ysti p u lat ion s the p arti es m ayen ter i n to, th e D efen d an t’ s fin a l se n ten c e is s o lelyin th e re a so n a b le d isc re tio n o f th e C o u rt.”); id . ¶ 15 ( “Ther e have been no r epr es ent at i ons orpr om i s es fr om any one as t o w hat sent ence the C ou rtw i l l i m po se. ”). W e fai l t o find an yam bigui tyi n these s t at ement s ori n t he pl ea a gr eementas a w hol e, and ther efor e r ej ectM r . L opezGa me z ’ s a s s e r t i o n t h a tt h e a g r e e me n tmi s l e d h i m. W e f u rth er find n o ev iden ce to o therw ise i n d icate tha t M r. L o p ez -G am ez ’s gui l t ypl ea a nd hi s as s entt o t he pl ea a gr eementw er e notvol unt ary , know i ng, and in tellig e n t. T h e re c o rd in d ica tes th a t th e d istric t co u rt f u lfill e d th e re q u ire m e n ts s etouti n R ul e 11 and thos e announc ed i n G ig o t to e n s u re th e v a lid ity o f th e p le a . See M ay5, 2006, Pl ea M i nut e Sheet( i ndi cat i ng thatthe di s tr i ctcourtj udge ver i fi ed a factual bas i s fort he pl ea, ques t i oned the defendantand conf i r m ed that he ful l yunder s t ood t he cha r ges agai ns thi m and the cons equenc es of the pl ea, exp l ai ned t he term s and co nd i t i on s of t he p roposed plea agreem ent, and otherw i seW e not e al s o t hatM r . L opez- G amez br i efl ycont es t s t he amountof 2 m e th a m p h e ta m in e fo r w h ic h h e w a s c h a rg e d a n d c o n v ic te d . See R e sp o n se to A nder s B r i ef a t1- 2. B utbeca us e w e fi nd thatM r . L opez- G amez know i ngl yand vol unt ar i l ypl ed gui l t yt o t he i ndi ctm ent , w hi ch s peci fi ed the drug amount as bei ng i n exce s s of 500 gr ams, w e fi nd no m er i tt o thi s chal l enge. W e al s o fi nd no m eritin M r. L o p ez -G am ez ’s co m p lai n t th at th e p lea a g ree m en t and co u n sel’s A nd ers br i ef w er e def i ci entbeca us e theydi d nots peci fyt he exa ctquant i tyof drugs he w as acc us ed of pos s es s i ng. Forpurpos es of i ndi ctm entand convi ct i on u n d e r t h e re le v a n t s ta tu te , s ee 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 (b )(1 )(A )(v iii ), itw a s o n ly necessaryt o specifyt hat the q uan t i tyw as i n ex cess of 50 0 g ram s. - 8 - ens ur ed thatt he pl ea w as fr eel y , vol unt ar i l y , and i nt el l i gent l ym ade) . M r . L opezG a m e z h a s fa iled to p u t fo rw a rd a n ye v id e n c e o r c o lo ra b le a rg u m e n t th a t w o u ld pl ace t he val i di t yof the pl ea orpl ea a gr eementi n doubt , and s o anyappea l on t hese grou nd s w ou l d b e m eri t l ess. 2 3. A s fort he pos s i bi l i t yof appe al bas ed on i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of cou nsel , w e no t e t hat, even i f M r. L op ez-G am ez had a vali d clai m on t hese gr ounds , s uch a c l ai m i s pr oper l ypur s ued i n col l at er al pr ocee di ngs r athert han on d ir e c t a p p e a l s o th a t h e c a n p ro c e e d w ith a re c o rd d e v e lo p e d fo r t h a t p u rp o s e . See Uni t ed Stat es v. B r ooks , 43 8 F . 3d 12 31 , 12 42 (10t h C i r. 20 06 ) ( “T he v ast m ajo rityo f

in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l cla im s s h o u ld b e b ro u g h t in c o llate ra l p ro c e e d in g s ra th e r th a n o n d ire c t ap p e a l f ro m a c o n v ictio n .”); see also Uni t ed Stat es v. G al l ow ay , 5 6 F . 3 d 1 2 3 9 , 1 2 4 0 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) (en b an c).- 9 - * * * Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e gr antcouns el ’ s m ot i on t o w i thdr aw and d ism iss th e a p p e a l. ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT

N ei l M . G or s uch C i r cui tJ udge