A ft erexami ni ng appel l ant ’ s br i ef a nd the appe l l at e r ecor d, thi s panel has * det erm i ned unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tthe 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. 34. 1( G ) . T he ca s e i s ther efor e s ubm i tt ed w i thoutor al ar gum ent . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, orcol l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve v a l u e c o n s i s t e n twi th F e d . R. Ap p . P . 3 2 . 1 ( e ff. De c . 1 , 2 0 0 6 ) a n d 1 0 th Ci r . R. 3 2 . 1 (eff. Jan . 1 , 2 0 0 7 ). 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### D e c e m b e r18,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C lerk of C ourt 

### UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

T E N T H C IRC 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. RI CA RD O M OR AL E S - M ADR I D, D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 05- 2359 ( D. C. No . CR - 0 4 - 1 0 8 0 M CA ) ( N ew M exi co)



### ORD ERAN D J UDG M EN T * B efor e M UR P HY , S EY M OUR , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es. R i car do M or al es - M adr i d pl ed gui l tyt o bei ng an i l l egal al i en i n pos s es s i on of a f i r earm i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 922( g) ( 5) , and the di s tr i ctcourts ent ence d h i m t o a t e rm o f

i n c a r c e r a t i o n a tth e b o tt o m o f th e a p p l i c a b l e g u i d e l i n e r a n g e . On appea l , M r . M or al es - M adr i d’ s couns el fi l ed an A nd ers b rie f a n d m o v e d to- 2-

wi th d r a w. Af

t e rc o n s i d e r i n g c o u n s e l ’ s b r i e f a n d r e v i e wi n g th e r e c o r d , we c o n c lu d e th e re a re n o n o n -f riv o lo u s g ro u n d s o n w h ich M r. M o ra les -M a d rid c o u ld appea l hi s s ent ence . A ccor di ngl y , w e gr antcouns el ’ s m ot i on t o w i thdr aw and d ism iss th is a p p e a l. T h e p rese n tenc e re p o rt(P S R ) st ated , an d the d istri ct co u rtfo u n d , that M r. M o ra le s -M a d ri d e n g a g e d in a d ru g tr a n s a c tio n w ith a n u n d e rc o v e r p o lic e o ffic e r. W hen he w as arr es t ed and s ubj ect ed t o a s ear ch, offi cer s di s cover ed a l oaded rev o lver a n d sev era l r o ck s o f c o ca ine in M r. M o rales-M ad ri d ’s ba ck p ac k . M r. M or al es - M adr i d admi tt ed both the cr ack a nd the r evol verbel onged t o hi m and th a t h e w a s a M e x ic a n n a tio n a l in th e U n ite d S ta te s ille g a lly. I n excha nge fora gui l typl ea t o pos s es s i on of a f i r earm byan i l l egal al i en, the g o v ern m en t agre ed n o t t o p ress d rug p o sses sion o r distr ibu ti o n ch arg es. M r. M or al es - M adr i d pl ed gui l ty , and the U ni t ed St at es Pr obat i on O ffi ce pr epar ed a P S R . T h e P S R ca lculated an o ffen se lev el of 2 5 an d a c ri m inal h ist o ryca tego ry of II , res ult i ng i n a sug gest ed sentenci ng range o f 63 t o 7 8 m on ths. M r. M oral esM adr i d fi l ed an obj ect i on t o the PSR and a “ m ot i on t o compl yw i th B lakel y v. Was hi ngt on . ” R ec . , v o l. I at 24 . A t th e se n tenc ing h ea ri n g , the d istri ct co u rt ag ree d w ith M r. M o rales-M ad ri d that a c ri m inal h ist o ryca tego ryo f II o v err epr es ent ed hi s cr i m i nal hi s t oryand i ns t ead s ett l ed on ca t egoryI . T he courtthen adopt ed the r emai nderof the PSR and s ent ence d M r . M or al es - M adr i d t o a t erm of 57 m onths , w hi ch w as atthe bott om of the appl i cabl e gui del i ne r ange.- 3-

L i t t l e more than a mont h l at er , the Supr eme C ourtdeci ded Uni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) . M r . M or al es - M adr i d fi l ed a not i ce of appea l , and thi s courtr emanded forr es ent enci ng i n l i ghtof B ooker . O n rem an d , M r. M or al es - M adr i d r eques t ed a ne w s ent ence of t i m e s erved or19 m onths . H e r el i ed o n h is y o u th a t th e tim e o f th e o ffe n se a n d th e fa c t th a t h e w a s o rp h a n e d a t a y o u n g ag e a n d left w ith o u t st ab le ad u ltg u idan ce an d su p p o rt . T h e d istri ct co u rt sta ted th a t ith a d c o n sid e re d th e fa c ts o f th e c a se in lig h t o f

th e fa c to rs s e t fo rth in 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) and aga i n s ent ence d M r . M or al es - M adr i d t o 57 m onths i ncar cer at i on underthe now - advi s orygui del i nes . M r . M or al es - M adr i d fi l ed a n o tice o f

a p p e a l. T he Supr eme C ourt ’ s deci s i on i n A n de rs v . C a lif o rn ia a u th o riz e s c o u n se l to requestperm i ssi on t o w i thd raw w here cou nsel con sci enti ou sl yexam i nes a case and det erm i nes thatan appe al w oul d be w hol l yfr i vol ous . 386 U . S. 738, 744 (19 6 7 ). U n d er A nd ers , co u n sel m u st sub m ita b ri ef to h is cl ient an d this co u rt in d ic a tin g a n yp o te n tia l g ro u n d s fo r a p p e a l b a s e d o n th e re c o rd . Id . H i s cl i ent m a yc h o o s e to s u b m it a rg u m e n ts to th e c o u rtin re s p o n s e . Id . I f w e conc l ude aft era ful l exami nat i on of the r ecor d thatthe appe al i s fr i vol ous , w e maygr ant c o u n s e l’ s m o tio n to w ith d ra w a n d d is m is s th e a p p e a l. Id . In hi s A nd ers b rie f, M r. M o ra les -M a d rid ’s c o u n se l sta ted th a t th e o n ly r emot el ypos s i bl e gr ound foran appe al w as an i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el cl ai m , butfurthers t at ed thatther e w as no evi dence i n the r ecor d of an i ns t ance of- 4-

per se i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el . D es pi t e bei ng s erved the A nd ers br i ef and gi ven an opportuni tybythi s courtt o r es pond, M r . M or al es - M adr i d has fai l ed t o do s o. U pon ourow n exami nat i on of the r ecor d, w e conc l ude ther e ar e no nonfri vo l ou s appea l able i ssues. M r . M or al es - M adr i d pl ed gui l tyt o bei ng an i l l egal al i en i n pos s es s i on of a fire a rm . T h e re is n o e v id e n c e in th e re c o rd th a t h is p lea w a s m a d e u n k n o w in g ly o r in v o lu n tar ily . F u rth e rm o re , w e c a n d isc o v e r n o e v id e n c e in th e re c o rd to s u g g e s t th a t M r. M o ra le s -M a d ri d ’s 5 7 -m o n th s e n te n c e w a s u n re a s o n a b le . See Uni t ed Stat es v. G alarz a- P ayan , 441 F. 3d 885, 887 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( Fol l ow i ng B ooker , “[w ] e r evi ew s ent ence s i m pos ed bythe di s tr i ctcourtfor rea so n ab lene ss.”). In re v iew ing the re aso n ab lene ss o f M r. M o rales-M ad ri d ’s s ent ence , “w e cons i derw hetherthe di s tr i ctcourtcorr ect l yappl i ed the G ui del i nes a n d w h e th e r th e u lti m a te s e n ten c e is re a so n a b le in lig h t o f th e fa c to rs s e t fo rth in 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Sanchez -Juar ez , 446 F. 3d 1109, 1114 ( 10th C i r . 2006) . A s ent ence fal l i ng w i thi n the pr oper l y - cal cul at ed gui del i nes ra n g e is e n title d to a re b u tta b le p re s u m p tio n o f re a s o n a b le n e s s . Id . T her e i s nothi ng i n the r ecor d i n thi s cas e t o r ebutthe pr es um pt i on of r eas onabl enes s . T he s t atut orym axi m um fora convi ct i on forpos s es s i on of a fir e a rm b ya n ille g a l a lie n is 1 0 y e a rs im p ri s o n m e n t. See 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 4 (a )( 2 ). M r . M or al es - M adr i d’ s 57- m onth s ent ence fal l s w el l s hortof the maxi m um s ent ence . A ccor di ngl y , the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s s ent enci ng fi ndi ngs r el at i ve t o drug- 5-

pos s es s i on and di s tr i but i on do notrun afoul of B ookerbecaus e theydi d not in c re a s e M r. M o ra le s -M a d ri d ’s s e n te n c e b e y o n d th e s ta tu to ry m a x im u m . M o reo v er, th e re co rd in d icates the co u rtco n side red the p arti cu lar fac ts of M r. M o rales-M ad ri d ’s ca se w h en itd ec ided to ad o p t a crim inal h ist o ryca tego ryo f I, r atherthan the PSR ’ s s ugges t ed ca t egoryof I I . I n l i ghtof thi s and the di s tr i ct c o u r t ’ s c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f M r . M o r a l e s - M a d r i d ’ s r e q u e s tfo ra s e n t e n c e o f t i me se rv e d a t h is p o st- B ookerse n ten c in g h e a rin g , w e c a n n o t sa yth a t a 5 7 -m o n th s ent ence i s unr eas onabl e. Fur therm or e, w e r ej ecti neffect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el as a pos s i bl e nonfri vo l ou s appea l able i ssue. E xcep ti n “rar e i nst ances [w here] an ineffecti ven ess of couns el cl ai m . . . need[ s ] no furtherdevel opm entpr i ort o r evi ew on di r ect a p p e a l , ” th i s c o u r twi l l n o tc o n s i d e ri n e ffe c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f c o u n s e l c l a i ms u n le s s th e yw e re b ro u g h t p u rs u a n t to a c o lla te ra l c h a lle n g e . Uni t ed Stat es v. G al l ow ay , 5 6 F .3 d 1 2 3 9 , 1 2 4 0 (1 0 C ir. 1 9 9 5 ). T h e re c o rd in th is c a se p re se n ts th n o a p p a re n t g ro u n d s fo r d e v ia tin g f ro m th is w e ll- e s ta b lis h e d ru le . B ecaus e ourr evi ew of the r ecor d fai l ed t o r evea l anynon- fr i vol ous appea l abl e i s s ues , w e GRANT couns el ’ s m ot i on t o w i thdr aw and D I SM I SS th is a p p e a l. ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT St ephani e K . Seym our C i r cui tJ udge