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. 

## 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 6, 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. N o. 06- 8027 D U STI N K U RT A M O S, D e f e n d a n t-A p p e llan t. (D . C . N o. 05 -C R -124-A B J) ( D . W y om i ng)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e B R I S C O E , E B E L , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es. D e f e n d a n t D u stin A m o s p led g u iltyto o n e c o u n t o f c o n sp ira c yto p o ss e ss w ith i nt entt o di s tr i but e and t o di s tr i but e met hamphet ami ne, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . §§ 841( a) ( 1) and 846, and w as s ent ence d t o a t erm of i m pr i s onm entof 292 m onths . A ft er fi l i ng a t i m el ynot i ce of appea l , A m os ’ s couns el , L or ett a G r een, fi l ed an A nder s br i ef a nd m oved t o w i thdr aw as couns el , s t at i ng that , aft ercons ci ent i ous l yexami ni ng the r ecor d, s he coul d fi nd no bas i s foran appe al . See A nder s v. C al i forni a, 386 U . S. 738, 744 ( 1967) . T he governm entdecl i ned t o s ubm i ta br i ef. O urj ur i s di ct i on overthe appe al-2-

ar i s es pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. A ft erexami ni ng the r ecor d, w e agr ee w i th couns el th a t th e re a re n o m e rito rio u s is su e s f o r a p p e a l, an d th e re f

o re g ra n t co u n se l’s m o tio n to w ith d ra w a n d d ism iss th e a p p e a l. I. B e tw e e n D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 2 a n d F e b ru a ry2 0 0 5 , law e n f o rc e m e n t o f

f icia ls in Sw eetw at erC ounty , W y om i ng, i nves t i gat ed a methamphet ami ne di s tr i but i on oper at i on i nvol vi ng s ever al i ndi vi dual s , i ncl udi ng defe ndantA m os . T he i nves t i gat i on r evea l ed that A m os began pe r s onal l yus i ng m ethamphet ami ne i n ear l y2004, beca m e addi ct ed, and even tuall ybeg an sel l i ng subst anti al qu anti t i es of m et ham ph et am i ne in sout heast W y om i ng. O n M ay19, 2005, a fe der al gr and j uryr eturned an e l even- counti ndi ctm ent againstA m os and fi ve co -defend ants . W hil e i n cu st od yi n co nn ect i on w i th these charges, A m os es cape d fr om a s t at e det ent i on fac i l i ty , s t ol e a mot orvehi cl e, and fl ed t o N ew M exi co, w her e he w as appr ehende d. O n J anuary9, 2006, A m os pl ed gui l ty , pur s uantt o a w r i t t en pl ea a gr eement , t o one countof cons pi r i ng t o pos s es s w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e and t o di s tr i but e betw een f

i ve and f i ft een ki l ogr ams of met hamphet ami ne, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U .S .C . § § 8 4 1 (a )(1 ) a n d 8 4 6 . O n M a rc h 2 0 , 2 0 0 6 , the d istric t co u rt se n ten c e d A m o s to 292 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm ent , a t erm atthe bott om of the appl i cabl e G ui del i ne r ange. A m os su b se q u e n tlyf

iled a tim e lyn o tice o f

a p p e a l. II. A m os ’ s appoi nt ed couns el has fi l ed a br i ef pur s uantt o A nder s s t at i ng thats he coul d fi nd no err ori n the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s acc ept ance of A m os ’ s gui l typl ea, ori n the-3-

di s tr i ctcourt ’ s cal cul at i on ori m pos i t i on of A m os ’ s s ent ence . A m os w as aff or ded an o p p o rt u n ity to re s p o n d to th e A n d e rs b ri e f , b u t f a ile d to d o s o . W e have ful l yexami ned the r ecor d of the di s tr i ctcourtpr ocee di ngs as r equi r ed by A nder s , and conc l ude thatthe appe al i s fr i vol ous . D ur i ng the cha nge of pl ea he ar i ng t he di s tr i ctcourt , cons i s t entw i th Feder al R ul e of Cri m i nal Pr ocedur e 11( b) ( 1) , i nform ed A m os of hi s r i ght s , the natur e of the cha r ges agai ns thi m , and the maxi m um and m in im u m p e n a lti e s h e f a c e d . T h e d istric t co u rt a lso q u e stio n e d A m o s a n d h is c o u n se l to es t abl i s h thatA m os w as ful l ycompet entt o ent era pl ea, and thathi s pl ea w as know i ng, vol unt ary , and s uppor t ed bya fa ctual bas i s . A tthe s ubs equents ent enci ng hear i ng, A m o s’s att o rne yco n ce d ed the s eriou s n ature o f th e o ff en se o f c o n v ict ion an d A m o s’s len g th yc rim in a l re c o rd , b u t as k e d th e d istric t co u rt to d e p a rt d o w n w a rd p u rsu a n t to U . S. S. G . § 5K 2. 13 on the gr ounds thatA m os had l ong s uffe r ed fr om bi pol ardi s or derand thatthe di s or dercontr i but ed s ubs t ant i al l yt o A m os ’ s i nvol vementi n the drug- tr aff i cki ng c o n sp ira c y . T h e d istric t co u rt, h o w e v e r, n o ted th a t th e re w a s n o e v id e n c e b e f o re it i ndi cat i ng thatA m os ’ s bi pol ardi s or der , r atherthan hi s vol unt aryus e of m ethamphet ami ne, contr i but ed s ubs t ant i al l yt o hi s comm i s s i on of the off ens e of co n v ict ion . A cc o rdin g ly , the d istri ct co u rtp rop erlyco n clud ed that it“sh o u ld n o t dep art b e lo w th e a p p lica b le g u id e lin e ra n g e ” p u rsu a n t to U .S .S .G . § 5 K 2 .1 3 “ if th e sig n if

ica n tly reduced m ental capac i tyw as caused b ythe v olunt aryuse of drugs or otheri ntoxi cants , w hi ch appe ar s t o [have ] be[e n] the ca s e her e. ” R O A , V ol . 4 at34. Fi nal l y , the di s tr i ct courtcar eful l ycons i der ed the fa ct or s out l i ned i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) befor e i m pos i ng a-4-

s ent ence atthe bott om of the gui del i ne r ange a nd cr edi t i ng A m os w i th the t i m e he ha d s erved pr i ort o t he s ent enci ng hear i ng. Co u n s e l ’ s mo t i o n t o wi th d r a w i s GR ANT E D a n d th e a p p e a l i s DI S M I S S E D. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt M aryB eck Bri s coe C i r cui tJ udge