UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. JOHN ALBERT BROOKS, Defendant - Appellant. No. 17-6095 (D.C. No. 5:96- CR-00077-M-1) (W.D. Oklahoma)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before PHILLIPS , McKAY , and McHUGH , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ John Brooks filed a notice of appeal ch allenging the imposition of a thirty-month term of incarceration for violating the term s of his supervised release. His appointed counsel moved to withdraw from the case pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there are no non-frivolous gr ounds for appeal. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a), we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and dismiss the appeal.

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not ma terially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Ci r. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### December 7, 2017
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 I. BACKGROUND In 1996, Mr. Brooks was convicted of possessing phencyclidine (PCP) with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). He was sentenced to 144 months’ imprisonment to be followed by five-years of supervised rele ase. His supervised release began immediately following his 2006 releas e from the Bureau of Prisons’ custody. While on supervised release, he was ch arged in Oklahoma County District Court with Indecent or Lewd Acts with a Child Under 14. He pl eaded guilty and was sentenced to twenty-five years’ imprisonment, fiftee n of which were suspended. Based on this conviction, the government filed a petition to revoke Mr. Brooks’s supervised release following the completion of hi s state incarceration. The Probation Office prepared a Violation Report for the revocation hearing which calculated Mr. Brooks’s Guideline sentencing range as twenty-four to thirty months. At the hear ing, Mr. Brooks admitted to violating the terms of his supervised rele ase and the court sent enced him to thirtymonths’ imprisonment to be followed by a s upervised release period of ten years. Mr. Brooks timely appealed and his c ounsel moved to withdraw pursuant to Anders , asserting there are no meritorious claims to raise on appeal. II. DISCUSSION
In Anders , the Supreme Court permitted defense “counsel to request permission to withdraw [from an appeal] where counsel conscientiously examines a case and determines that any appeal would be wholly frivolous.” United States v. Calderon , 428 F.3d 928, 930 (10th Cir. 2005) (citing Anders , 386 U.S. at 744). Counsel’s request must be accompanied by a brief anal yzing anything in the record that could potentially support3 a claim on appeal. Anders , 386 U.S. at 744. And the brie f must be provided to the defendant, who then has the op portunity to submit any additio nal arguments to the court. Id. Counsel has complied with this procedure and neither Mr. Brooks nor the government has filed a response. Based on our independen t review, we agree there are no meritorious claims available to Mr. Brooks on appeal. Because Mr. Brooks stipulated that his c onviction for Indecent or Lewd Acts with a Child Under 14 violated the terms of his s upervised release, he cannot challenge the revocation of his supervised release. See United States v. Wright , 43 F.3d 491, 494 (10th Cir. 1994). “Having pleaded guilty, [Mr. Brooks’s] only av enue for challenging his conviction is to claim that he did not voluntarily or in telligently enter his plea.” Id. Nothing in the reco rd indicates Mr. Brooks’s stipulation that he violated the terms of his supervised release—nor his guilty plea in the underlying criminal charge—was involuntary. There are no appealable issu es related to Mr. Brooks’s conviction. Similarly, a review of Mr. Brooks’s revocation hearing transcript confirms there are no meritorious grounds on which to challe nge his sentence. Ther e is no evidence to support an argument that the district court’s sentence was procedurally or substantively unreasonable. The court properly considered the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3353(a) and sentenced Mr. Brooks to a term of incarceration that is within the properlycalculated Guidelines sentencing range. Furthe rmore, because Mr. Brooks’s sentence was within his recommended Guidelin es range, it is presumptively reasonable and nothing in the record rebuts this presumption. See United States v. Kristl , 437 F.3d 1050, 1054 (10th Cir. 2006) (per curiam).4 III. CONCLUSION We GRANT counsel’s request to w ithdraw and we DISMISS the appeal. Entered for the Court
Carolyn B. McHugh Circuit Judge