A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l yt o gr antcouns el ’ s r eques tfora dec i s i on on the br i efs w i thoutor al a rg u m e n t. See Fed. R . A pp. P. 34( f) and 10th C i r . R . 34. 1( G ) . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a and c ol l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s 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 

### N ove m b e r 6, 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. M A RI A H ER N A N D EZ- SO LI S, D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 07- 1109 ( D. C. No . 0 6 - c r - 0 0 3 8 6 - E WN)

(D . C o lo .)

OR DER AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e LU CE RO , HA RTZ , and GORS UCH , C i rcui tJudg es. M ar i a H ernandez - Sol i s pl ed gui l tyt o a one- counti ndi ctm entchar gi ng her w i t h i l l egal r e- entr yof a de por t ed al i en pr evi ous l yconvi ct ed of a n aggr avat ed fe lo n y . See 8 U . S. C . § 1326( a) , ( b) ( 2) . T he di s tr i ctcourts ent ence d hert o 27 m o n th s im p riso n m e n t, fo llo w e d b yth re e y e a rs o f su p e rv ise d re lea se . O n a p p e a l, M s . H ernandez - Sol i s ’ s couns el fi l ed an A nd ers br i ef a nd m oved t o w i thdr aw as 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 ( 1967) . W e r ece i ved no- 2 -

r es pons e fr om M s . H ernandez - Sol i s , and the governm ental s o decl i ned t o fi l e a r es pons e. Forthe r eas ons s etfor th 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 e a p p e a l. * * * A u th o rities fo u n d M s. H e rn a n d e z -S o lis, a n a tiv e o f M e x ico , in C o lo ra d o in A ugus t2006, aft ers he had be en deport ed fr om the U ni t ed St at es on fi ve pr i or occa s i ons . She w as char ged w i t h one countof i l l egal r e- entryfol l ow i ng depor t at i on, i n vi ol at i on of 8 U . S. C . § 1326( a) . B eca us e herpr i ordeport at i on w a s s u b se q u e n t to a c o n v ictio n fo r a n a g g ra v a ted fe lo n y , M s. H e rn a n d e z -S o lis fa c e d a p o s s i b l e p r i s o n s e n t e n c e o f u p t o 2 0 y e a r s , p u r s u a n tt o 8 U. S . C. § 1326( b) ( 2) . M s . H ernandez - Sol i s pl ed gui l tyt o the one- counti ndi ctm ent p u rsu a n t to a w ritten p lea a g re e m e n t w ith th e g o v e rn m e n t. Pur s uantt o t he advi s or yU ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i nes ( “G ui del i nes ”) , M s . H ernandez - Sol i s ’ s convi ct i on carr i ed a ba s e offens e l evel of 8 . See U . S. S. G . § 2L 1. 2( a) . B utbeca us e s he had be en deport ed fol l ow i ng a convi ct i on foran aggr avat ed fe l ony , the G ui del i nes r ecomm ended a n 8- l evel e n h a n c e m e n t. See i d. § 2L 1. 2( b) ( 1) ( C ) . Subt r act i ng 3 l evel s foracc ept ance of re s p o n s ib ility, M s . H e rn a n d e z -S o lis ’s fin a l s u g g e s te d o ffe n s e le v e l w a s 1 3 . A ddi t i onal l y , beca us e of he rpr i orconvi ct i ons , M s . H ernandez - Sol i s w as cl as s i fi ed atcr i m i nal hi s t or ycat egoryl evel I V . T hatoffe ns e l evel and cr i m i nal- 3 -

hi s t or ycat egorypr oduced a pr opos ed G ui del i nes s ent enci ng r ange of 24- 30 m ont hs i m pr i s onm entw i t h 2- 3 y ear s of s upervi s ed r el eas e. M s. H e rn a n d e z -S o lis d id n o t ch a llen g e a n ya sp e c t o f th e p re se n ten c e re p o rt, w hi ch i ncl uded the G ui del i nes r ange c al cul at i on and i nform at i on abouther backgr ound, fami l y , and otherpot ent i al l yr el evantfac t or s . A tthe s ent enci ng hear i ng, M s . H ernandez - Sol i s ’ s couns el r eques t ed a s ent ence atthe “l ow end” of t h e Gu i d e l i n e s r a n g e , p u r s u a n tt o th e s e n t e n c i n g fa c t o r s s e to u ti n 1 8 U. S . C. § 3553( a) , beca us e M s . H ernandez - Sol i s “es s ent i al l ygr ew up” i n the U ni t ed St at es and herchi l dr en curr ent l yr es i de her e. Sent enci ng H r ’ g T r . at3- 4. T h ere b eing n o o bjecti o n to the p rese n tenc e re p o rt , the d istri ct co u rt ado pted i t s factual fi nd i ng s and G uidel i nes range calcul at i on ; the co urtal so acknow l edged i thad t aken “ ful l cons i der at i on of the fa ct or s s peci fi ed” i n 18 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ). Id . at5, 7. T he courts t at ed that , al though i tunder s t ood the c irc u m sta n c e s th a t ca u se d M s. H e rn a n d e z -S o lis “ to k e e p c o m in g b a c k to th is countr y , ” s he has “a s er i ous cr i m i nal hi s t or yand does notappea rt o have be en s i gni fi cant l ydet err ed bypr i orpr i s on s ent ence s . ” Id . at6. A s a r es ul t , the di s tr i ct cour ti m pos ed a s ent ence of 27 m onths

— i n the mi ddl e of the G ui del i nes ra n g e — fin d in g th a t su c h se n ten c e “ is s u fficie n t b u t n o t g re a ter th a n n e c e ss a ryto achi eve the s t atut or ypurpos es of a s ent ence of i ncar cer at i on, i ncl udi ng the nee d fo r th e se n ten c e im p o se d to re flec t th e se rio u sn e ss o f th e o ffe n se , to p ro m o te re sp e c t fo r th e law , to p ro v id e ju st p u n ish m e n t fo r th e o ffe n se , to a ffo rd a d e q u a te- 4 -

det err ence t o cr i m i nal conduct , and t o pr ot ectthe publ i c fr om fur thercr i m es of t he defendant . ” Id. * * * 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 to t he cl i entand the appe l l at e courti ndi cat i ng any pot ent i al appeal ab le i s s ues bas ed on the r ecor d. T he cl i entm aythen choos e t o s ubm i tar gum ent s t o the court . T he [c] our t m 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 th e courtconcl udes aft ers uch an 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 h er A nd ers br i ef, couns el not ed thatthi s appea l w oul d conce i vabl ybe m erit o ri o u s o n lyif (1) the g u il typ lea w ere n o t vo lun taryo r (2) the sen tenc e w ere u n re a so n a b le. A f

ter c o n d u c tin g 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 cou nsel ’s con cl usi on t hat no ba si s i n law or factexis t s for ei ther of these argum ents . A v a lid g u ilty p le a m u s t b e k n o w in g ly, 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 , 1 4 7 F .3 d 1 1 9 3 , 1 1 9 7 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 8 ); s ee als o F e d . R. C rim . P . 1 1 . 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- 5 -

s etouti n R ul e 11 and thos e announc ed i n G ig o t t o ens ur e the val i di tyof the pl ea. See P lea H r’g T r. (in d ica tin g th a t th e d istric t co u rt ju d g e v e rified a fa c tu a l b a sis fort he pl ea, ques t i oned the defendantand conf i r m ed thats he ful l yunder s t ood t he char ges agai ns therand the cons equenc es of the pl ea, and otherw i s e ens ur ed that th e p lea w a s f

re e ly , v o lu n tar ily , an d in tellig e n tlym a d e ). M s. H e rn a n d e z -S o lis h as fail ed to p u t fo rw ard an yev iden ce o r arg u m en ts th at w o u ld p lace the p lea’s vali dityi n d ou bt, and so anyapp eal on these grou nd s w ou l d b e fri vo l ou s. W e al s o fai l t o fi nd anynon- fr i vol ous gr ounds forappea l as t o the r eas onabl enes s of the s ent ence . A s couns el poi nt s out , the s ent ence fel l i n the m i ddl e of the G ui del i nes r ange; as s uch, w e ac cor d i ta pr es um pt i on of re a s o n a b le n e s s . See Ri ta v. Uni t ed Stat es , 1 2 7 S . C t. 2 4 5 6 , 2 4 6 2 -6 3 (2 0 0 7 ). Be a r i n g i n mi n d t h e v a r i o u s s e n t e n c i n g fa c t o r s s e tfo r th b yCo n g r e s s i n 1 8 U. S . C. § 3 5 5 3 (a ), w e fin d n o e v id e n c e in d ica tin g th a t th e d istric t co u rt a b u se d its d iscreti o n in an yw ayin se n tenc ing M s. H ern an d ez -S o li s. T h e d istri ct co u rt expl ai ned i t s deci s i on t o i m pos e a s ent ence i n the mi ddl e of the G ui del i nes r ange i n t erm s of the fa ct or s under18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) , r emar ki ng on M s . H ernandez Sol i s ’ s cr i m i nal hi s t or yand i ndi cat i ng thats he “doe s notappea rt o have be en si gn i fi cantl ydeterred bypri or pri son sentences. ” T he co urtfull ycon si dered M s. H e rn a n d e z -S o lis’s b a c k g ro u n d a n d th e a p p lica b le 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ) fa c to rs in fa sh io n in g h e r se n ten c e . W e c a n fin d n o e v id e n c e in d ica tin g a n yp o ss ib le gr ounds forappea l of thi s s ent ence .- 6 - * * * 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