UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

ANTONIO MONCADA, JR., 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 15-8124 

(D.C. No. 2:15-CR-00089-SWS-1) 

(D. Wyo.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before HARTZ, MURPHY, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Defendant Antonio Moncada, Jr. pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute over 

500 grams of a methamphetamine mixture, see 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(a), 846, 

and possession of firearms in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, see 18 U.S.C. 

§ 924(c)(1)(A). The district court imposed consecutive sentences of 180 months’ 

imprisonment on the first count and 60 months on the second. After Defendant brought 

an appeal, his counsel filed an Anders brief and moved to withdraw as counsel. See

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Under Anders, defense counsel may “request 

 

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously 

that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See

Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted 

without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under 

the doctrines 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 

July 27, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
 

2 

permission to withdraw 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); see also 10th Cir. R. 46.4(B)(1). Defendant and the government 

were given the opportunity to respond to counsel’s filings but neither did so. After 

conducting our own “full examination of all the proceedings,” Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 

we agree that there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Exercising jurisdiction under 

28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a), we dismiss this appeal and grant counsel’s 

motion to withdraw. 

I. BACKGROUND 

 A two-count indictment was filed against Defendant on May 20, 2015. He chose 

not to accept a plea agreement that required him to cooperate with the government and 

instead pleaded guilty on September 1 without the benefit of an agreement. 

 The presentence report (PSR) computed the quantity of methamphetamine 

distributed by Defendant as 17,283 grams. Under the applicable sentencing guidelines, 

distribution of at least 15 kilograms, but less than 45 kilograms, of methamphetamine 

carried a base offense level of 36. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 (2014). After a three-level 

reduction for acceptance of responsibility, see id. § 3E1.1(a),(b), his total offense level 

was 33. Defendant had a criminal-history category of VI based on six prior convictions 

adding three criminal-history points each, see id. §§ 4A1.1 (“Add 3 points for each prior 

sentence of imprisonment exceeding one year and one month.”), 4A1.2(k) (relating to 

additional sentence after revocation of probation or parole), resulting in a guidelines 

sentencing range of 235 to 293 months’ imprisonment for count 1. See id. Ch. 5 Pt. A. 
 

3 

On count 2 the statute provided a mandatory 60 months’ imprisonment to be served 

consecutively to the sentence on count 1. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i), (c)(1)(D)(ii). 

At sentencing, Defendant acknowledged reviewing the PSR with counsel and 

made no objections to the report. Defendant asked the court to vary downward to 120 

months on the first count to account for his age. The government opposed such a 

variance and asked for a guidelines sentence. The court varied downward, sentencing 

Defendant to 180 months’ imprisonment on the first count and 60 months’ imprisonment 

on the second. 

II. DISCUSSION 

An appeal in this case could succeed only if the guilty plea was invalid or if the 

sentence was unreasonable. Based on our independent review of the record, we agree 

that an appeal on either issue would be frivolous. 

To be valid, a guilty plea must be knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made. 

See United States v. Gigot, 147 F.3d 1193, 1196–97 (10th Cir.1998). Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 

“is designed to assist the district judge in making the constitutionally required 

determination that a defendant’s guilty plea is truly voluntary.” McCarthy v. United 

States, 394 U.S. 459, 465, (1969). In this case the district court complied with Rule 11. 

It ensured that Defendant understood his trial rights; questioned Defendant to confirm 

that he understood the charges against him; informed him of the mandatory minimum, the 

maximum possible penalty, the guidelines sentencing process, and the consequences of 

the plea; verified a factual basis for the plea; and otherwise ensured that the plea was 
 

4 

freely, voluntarily, and intelligently made. After independent review of the hearing, we 

see no nonfrivolous ground for challenging the plea. 

Nor is there any potentially meritorious ground for appealing Defendant’s 

sentence. We review sentences for procedural and substantive reasonableness. See

United States v. Balbin–Mesa, 643 F.3d 783, 786–87 (10th Cir.2011). The PSR correctly 

calculated the guideline range, and the court committed no procedural errors. With 

regard to the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, Defendant’s below-guideline 

sentence is entitled to a “rebuttable presumption of reasonableness” when “challenged by 

the defendant as unreasonably harsh.” Id. at 788. There is nothing apparent in the record 

that would rebut that presumption. The court considered the factors required by 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a). It varied downward from the guidelines range and said it was 

imposing a sentence “sufficient but not greater than necessary to accomplish the 

objectives after consideration of those factors under Title 18[, §] 3553(a)(1) through (7).” 

R., vol. 3 at 39. There is no plausible basis to challenge Defendant’s sentence. 

III. CONCLUSION 

We DISMISS the appeal and GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw. 

Entered for the Court 

Harris L Hartz 

Circuit Judge