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 offens e and was sentenced. His counsel submitted an Anders brief stating this appeal pr esents no non-frivolous grounds for reversal. After careful review of the re cord, we agree. Exer cising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and dismiss the appeal.

* After examining the briefs and appella te 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 This orde r and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, re s judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value c onsistent 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: 12 I. BACKGROUND Execution of a search warrant at Mr. Pryc e’s home led to seizure of computers and digital storage media containi ng about 2,930 images of child pornography. He admitted to downloading and distributing child pornogr aphy through a file sharing program. Mr. Pryce pled guilty with out 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 calculat ed an advisory Guide lines range of 121 to 151 months. After considering the sentenci ng 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 no tice 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 challe nge the guilty plea or the sentence. It concludes there are no such arguments. On the guilty plea, the brief states that because Mr. Pry ce 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 co lloquy, the court confirmed that Mr. Pryce knowingly, voluntarily, and competently understood the ri ghts he was waiving and the consequences of pleading guilty. Appellate Case: 21-5046 Document: 010110634666 Date Filed: 01/20/2022 Page: 23 On the procedural reasonableness of the se ntence, the brief states that because Mr. Pryce did not object to the district court’s calculation of the Guid elines range, appellate review is for plain error. Counsel has chec ked the court’s calculation and discerns no arguable plain error. On the sentence’s subs tantive reasonableness, counsel notes that Mr. Pryce’s sentence was presumptively reasona ble because it fell at the low end of the Guidelines range. He finds no ba sis 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 ex amination of it, he should so advise the court and request permission to withdraw. That request must, however, be accomp anied by a brief referring to anything in the record that mi ght arguably support the appeal. . . . [T]he court—not counsel— then proceeds, after a full examination of all the proceedi ngs, 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 th e record de novo. See United States v. Leon , 476 F.3d 829, 832 (10th Ci r. 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: 34 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 co urt addressed Mr. Pryce in open court to inform him of the charge; the statutory range of punishme nt and potential fines, special assessments, forfeiture, and restitution; the court’s obliga tion to calculate an applicable advisory Guidelines range and to consider the sent encing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); and the waiver of his rights, including his tr ial rights, by pleading guilty. The court determined that Mr. Pryce understood the fo regoing. 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 reco rd 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 plai n error because Mr. Pryce did not challenge the calculation of the Guidelin es 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 th e sentencing transcript. We discern no plain error— indeed, no error—in th e court’s Guidelines calculation, consideration of the § 3553(a) Appellate Case: 21-5046 Document: 010110634666 Date Filed: 01/20/2022 Page: 45 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 pres umptively 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. Pryc e 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-frivo lous ground for reversal based on the issues raised in the Anders brief. Nor have we uncovered any other nonfrivolous arguments for appeal. We grant co unsel’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 te rm 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