UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

TRAVIS PRYCE, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 21-5046 

(D.C. No. 4:20-CR-00329-CVE-1) 

(N.D. Okla.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before MATHESON, BRISCOE, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Travis Pryce pled guilty to a child pornography offense and was sentenced. His 

counsel submitted an Anders brief stating this appeal presents no non-frivolous grounds 

for reversal. After careful review of the record, we agree. Exercising jurisdiction under 

28 U.S.C. § 1291, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and dismiss the appeal. 

*

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

unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral 

argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, 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 

January 20, 2022

Christopher M. Wolpert 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 21-5046 Document: 010110634666 Date Filed: 01/20/2022 Page: 1
2 

I. BACKGROUND 

 Execution of a search warrant at Mr. Pryce’s home led to seizure of computers and 

digital storage media containing about 2,930 images of child pornography. He admitted 

to downloading and distributing child pornography through a file sharing program. 

Mr. Pryce pled guilty without a plea agreement to one count of knowingly 

distributing and receiving child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252(a)(2) and 

2252(b)(1). At sentencing, the court calculated an advisory Guidelines range of 121 to 

151 months. After considering the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the 

court sentenced Mr. Pryce to 121 months in prison and 10 years of supervised release. 

Mr. Pryce, through counsel, filed a timely notice of appeal. His counsel then filed 

an opening brief invoking Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), which “authorizes 

counsel to request 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). The Anders brief here addresses whether 

there are any non-frivolous arguments to challenge the guilty plea or the sentence. It 

concludes there are no such arguments. 

On the guilty plea, the brief states that because Mr. Pryce did not seek to withdraw 

his plea, appellate review is for plain error. The change of plea transcript shows that the 

district court complied with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 in accepting Mr. 

Pryce’s plea. In the plea colloquy, the court confirmed that Mr. Pryce knowingly, 

voluntarily, and competently understood the rights he was waiving and the consequences 

of pleading guilty. 

Appellate Case: 21-5046 Document: 010110634666 Date Filed: 01/20/2022 Page: 2
3 

On the procedural reasonableness of the sentence, the brief states that because Mr. 

Pryce did not object to the district court’s calculation of the Guidelines range, appellate 

review is for plain error. Counsel has checked the court’s calculation and discerns no 

arguable plain error. On the sentence’s substantive reasonableness, counsel notes that 

Mr. Pryce’s sentence was presumptively reasonable because it fell at the low end of the 

Guidelines range. He finds no basis to overcome the presumption. 

This court’s clerk’s office sent the Anders brief to Mr. Pryce and invited him to 

respond. He did not do so. 

II. DISCUSSION 

Anders provides that: 

[I]f counsel finds [the defendant’s] case to be wholly 

frivolous, after a conscientious examination of it, he should so 

advise the court and request permission to withdraw. That 

request must, however, be accompanied by a brief referring to 

anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal. 

. . . [T]he court—not counsel—then proceeds, after a full 

examination of all the proceedings, to decide whether the case 

is wholly frivolous. If it so finds it may grant counsel’s 

request to withdraw and dismiss the appeal . . . . 

386 U.S. at 744. When counsel submits an Anders brief, we review the record de novo. 

See United States v. Leon, 476 F.3d 829, 832 (10th Cir. 2007) (per curiam). 

Based on our de novo review of the record, we conclude that none of the issues 

addressed in the Anders brief has merit. We have not detected any other non-frivolous 

issue. 

On the guilty plea, Mr. Pryce did not object to the district court’s conduct of the 

Rule 11 change of plea hearing, nor did he ask to withdraw his plea. The Anders brief 

Appellate Case: 21-5046 Document: 010110634666 Date Filed: 01/20/2022 Page: 3
4 

thus correctly advises that Mr. Pryce may challenge the plea only for plain error. See 

United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 59 (2002); United States v Carillo, 860 F.3d 1293, 

1300 (10th Cir. 2017). We have reviewed the change of plea transcript and find it reveals 

no error under Rule 11. The court addressed Mr. Pryce in open court to inform him of 

the charge; the statutory range of punishment and potential fines, special assessments, 

forfeiture, and restitution; the court’s obligation to calculate an applicable advisory 

Guidelines range and to consider the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); and 

the waiver of his rights, including his trial rights, by pleading guilty. The court 

determined that Mr. Pryce understood the foregoing. It also addressed Mr. Pryce to 

determine that his plea was voluntary. The court further determined there was a factual 

basis for the plea. See ROA, Vol. 2 at 6-36. The record demonstrates compliance with 

Rule 11 and that his plea was “a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative 

courses of action” available. United States v. Muhammad, 747 F.3d 1234, 1239 (10th 

Cir. 2014) (quotations omitted). We see no ground on which Mr. Pryce could allege 

error, let alone plain error. 

On the sentence, the Anders brief again correctly states that appellate review of 

procedural reasonableness must be for plain error because Mr. Pryce did not challenge 

the calculation of the Guidelines range or otherwise object on the ground of procedural 

error. See United States v. Henson, 9 F.4th 1258, 1289 (10th Cir. 2021); United States v. 

Martinez-Barragan, 545 F.3d 894, 899 (10th Cir. 2008). We have reviewed the 

sentencing record, including the sentencing transcript. We discern no plain error—

indeed, no error—in the court’s Guidelines calculation, consideration of the § 3553(a) 

Appellate Case: 21-5046 Document: 010110634666 Date Filed: 01/20/2022 Page: 4
5 

factors, or explanation of the sentence. See ROA, Vol. 2 at 37-52. On substantive 

reasonableness, because the court chose 121 months—the bottom end of the Guidelines 

range—the sentence is presumptively reasonable. See United States v. Durham, 902 F.3d 

1180, 1238 (10th Cir. 2018); United States v. Balbin-Mesa, 643 F.3d 783, 788 (10th Cir. 

2011). We see no basis on which Mr. Pryce could overcome that presumption. See 

United States v. Kristl, 437 F.3d 1050, 1055 (10th Cir. 2006).1

 

III. CONCLUSION 

Our independent review of the record found no non-frivolous ground for reversal 

based on the issues raised in the Anders brief. Nor have we uncovered any other nonfrivolous arguments for appeal. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and dismiss the 

appeal. 

Entered for the Court 

Scott M. Matheson, Jr. 

Circuit Judge 

1

 The Anders brief also concluded that the term and conditions of supervised 

release are not open to a non-frivolous appellate challenge. We agree. 

Appellate Case: 21-5046 Document: 010110634666 Date Filed: 01/20/2022 Page: 5