T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptundert he * d o c tr in e s o f

la w o f th e c a s e , re s ju d ica ta and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, h o w e v e r, fo r its p e rsu a siv e v a lu e c o n sis ten t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C i r . R . 32. 1. 

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

### A u gu s t21,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C 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. P H IL L IP L E O N M A L L O R Y II, D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 06- 1468 ( D. Ct . No . 0 5 - c r - 2 9 8 - WYD)

(D . C o lo .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efo re T AC HA , C hi ef Ci r cui tJ udge, and BARRETT and BROR BY , Seni or C i rcui tJudg es.

A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 .9 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t.

A p p e llan t P h ill ip L e o n M a llo ryII p led g u iltyto o n e c o u n t o f k n o w in g lyB eca us e none of t he part i es pr ovi ded a s uffi ci entfac tual orpr ocedur al 1 narr at i ve i n t hei rappel l at e br i efs and r es pons es , w e r el yon document s i n the r e c o r d a n d p r o v i d e d o n a p p e a l fo rt h e p u rp o s e o f d i s c e rn i n g Dr . M a l l o ry ’ s c l a i ms as theyr el at e t o s uch bac kgr ound i nform at i on. B eca us e D r . M al l or ypr ovi ded m a n yo f th e d o c u m e n ts re latin g to h is s tate c a se , w e re lyo n th o se d o c u m e n ts so lelyfo r th e p u rp o se o f b a c k g ro u n d in fo rm a tio n , g iv in g D r. M a llo ryth e b e n e fit o f th e d o u b t as to th e c o n ten t o f th o se d o c u m e n ts o n lyfo r th e p u rp o se s o f th is a p p e a l. -2- m a k in g a fa lse a n d fictitio u s o ra l an d w ritten sta tem e n t in c o n n e c tio n w ith acqui s i t i on and att empt ed ac qui s i t i on of a f i r earm , w i th s uch s t at ementbei ng in ten d e d a n d lik e lyto d e c e iv e a lice n c e d d e a ler w ith re sp e c t to m a ter ial fa c ts r el at ed t o t he l aw ful nes s of the s al e and di s pos i t i on of the fi r earm , i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 922( a) ( 6) . T he di s t r i ctcourts ent ence d D r . M al l or yt o t i m e s erved and thr ee y ear s s upervi s ed r el eas e. A l though D r . M al l or yappea l s hi s convi ct i on and s ent ence , hi s at t or neyhas fi l ed an A nd ers br i ef a nd m ot i on t o w i thdr aw as c o u n s e l. S e e A n d e rs v . C a lif o rn ia , 386 U . S. 738, 744 ( 1967) . Forthe r eas ons s et fo rth h e re a f

ter , w e g ra n t co u n se l’s m o tio n to w ith d ra w a n d d ism iss th is a p p e a l.

I . B ackgr ound B eca us e D r . M al l or ypr emi s es hi s appea l , i n par t , on ci r cumst ance s pr ece di ng hi s fede r al offe ns e, s uch bac kgr ound i nform at i on i s us eful forour di s pos i t i on of hi s appea l , as fol l ow s . I n J ul y2004, offi cer s w i th the A r apahoe 1 C ounty , C ol or ado, Sher i ff’ s O ffi ce e xecut ed a s ear ch w arr antof a hot el r oom bas ed on al l egat i ons m ade bya w om an w ho cl ai m ed s he r ece i ved pr es cr i pt i onIn h is p lea a g re e m e n t, D r. M a llo rystip u late d to th e fa c ts s u p p o rtin g h is 2 in d ic tm e n t. -3- d ru g s f ro m a d o c to r a ss o c iate d w ith th a t ro o m in e x c h a n g e fo r a c ts u n re late d to the p rov isi o n o f a n ym ed ical serv ices. T h ere af ter, in M arc h 2 0 0 5 , D r. M all o ry w as i ndi ct ed and a r r es t ed on fe l onychar ges i n cas e number05- C R - 00609 i n the D i s t r i ctC our tforA r apahoe C ounty , C ol or ado. A l though D r . M al l or yw as r el eas ed on bond, a mandat or yr es tr ai ni ng or derw as i s s ued aga i ns thi m forthe pr ot ect i on of the w om an maki ng the al l egat i ons agai ns thi m . O ne of the co n d it ion s o f th e re str ainin g o rde r i n clud ed a p roh ibit ion stat ing D r. M all o ry coul d notpos s es s orcontr ol a fi r earm orotherw eapon. D r . M al l or ys i gned the o rd e r u n d e r th e n o tatio n a c k n o w led g in g re c e ip t o f th e o rd e r o n th e sa m e d a yit w a s is s u e d . T en w eeks l at er , on M ay26, 2005, D r . M al l or yknow i ngl ym ade a fal s e or fi ct i t i ous or al and w r i t t en s t at ementi n connec t i on w i th the ac qui s i t i on or at t empt ed ac qui s i t i on of a Bushm as t erA R - 15 . 223 cal i berr i fl e fr om a l i cens ed d e a ler , w ith su c h sta tem e n t b e in g in ten d e d a n d lik e lyto d e c e iv e su c h d e a ler w ith r es pectt o fac t s m at er i al t o t he l aw ful nes s of the s al e and di s pos i t i on of the fi r earm , i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 922 ( a) ( 6) . Speci fi cal l y , D r . M al l oryfi l l ed 2 outA T F for m 4473, w hi ch cont ai ns num er ous backgr ound ques t i ons and an admoni s hm entt hatfal s e s t at ement s m ade on the form m ayr es ul ti n fede r al-4-

pr os ecut i on. I n r es pons e t o t he ques t i on as ki ng w hetherthe pur chas eri s underan i nd i ct m ent for a fel on y , D r. M al l orym arked “n o, ” w hich w as an un true r espon se gi ven the pendi ng s t at e cha r ges agai ns thi m . T w o day s l at er , on M ay28, 2005, D r . M al l or yas ked a fami l yfr i end t o as s i s thi m i n pur chas i ng the s ame t ype of gun fr om t he s ame gun st or e, and on herA T F form s he made a fa l s e s t at ements he w a s p u rc h a s in g th e g u n fo r h e rs e lf a n d n o t a n o th e r i n d iv id u a l.

O n J une 2, 2005, an A r apahoe C ountyD i s tr i ctC our tj udge i s s ued an or der forD r . M al l or y ’ s arr es tand bond t o be s etat$100, 000, pr es um abl ybeca us e he vi ol at ed the pr ovi s i on of the r es t r ai ni ng or derpr ohi bi t i ng hi s pos s es s i on of a fi r earm . A few w eeks l at er , on J une 21, 2005, the fe der al i ndi ctm enti s s ued, char gi ng D r . M al l or yw i t h t he i ns t antoffe ns e. O n A ugus t24, 2005, a s uper s edi ng i ndi ctm enti s s ued cha r gi ng t he i ns t antoffe ns e and a ddi ng an addi t i onal countof abett i ng i n t he comm i s s i on of an offens e under18 U . S. C . § 922( a) ( 6) bycaus i ng a fa m i l yfr i end t o know i ngl ym ake a fal s e and f i ct i t i ous s t at ementi n connec t i on w ith a c q u is itio n a n d a tte m p te d a c q u is itio n o f a fir e a rm . T h e re a f ter , o n A p ril 2 7 , 2 0 0 6 , D r. M a llo rye n ter e d a p lea a g re e m e n t, a g re e in g to p lea d g u iltyto th e fe d e ra l co u n t o f m a k in g a fa lse sta tem e n t in connec t i on w i t h acqui s i t i on and att empt ed ac qui s i t i on of a f i r earm i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 922( a) ( 6) i n excha nge fordi s m i s s al of the addi t i onal cr i m i nal char ge-5-

of abe t t i ng another . H e al s o s i gned a s t at ementi n advanc e of hi s gui l typl ea a nd at t ended a pl ea he ar i ng befor e the fe der al di s tr i ctcour t , w her e the courtacc ept ed D r. M all o ry ’s gu il typ lea. O n M ay1 2 , 2 0 0 6 , an A rap ah o e C o u n tyD istri ct C o u rt j udge ent er ed an or derdi s m i s s i ng al l s t at e count s agai ns tD r . M al l or yand quas hi ng al l out s t andi ng w arr ant s i s s ued forhi s arr es tbas ed on the s t at e’ s m ot i on to d ism iss, w h ich e x p lai n ed p rose cu ti o n w as n o lon g er n ec essa ryb ec au se D r. M a llo ry p le d g u ilty in fe d e ra l d is tr ic t c o u rt in th e in s ta n t c a s e . T h ere af ter, a fed era l pro b ati o n o fficer p rep are d a p rese n tenc e re p o rt cal cul at i ng D r . M al l or y ’ s s ent ence underthe appl i cabl e U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G u idelines (“G u idelines ” o r “U . S . S . G . ”). T h e p rese n tenc e re p o rtset D r. M al l or y ’ s bas e offens e l evel at14, not ed he ha d no pr i orcr i m i nal hi s t ory , and re c o m m e n d e d a tw o -l e v e l d o w n w a rd a dju s tm e n t fo r a c c e p ta n c e o f re s p o n s ib ility. D r . M al l or y ’ s t ot al offe ns e l evel of 12, t ogetherw i th hi s cr i m i nal hi s t or yl evel s cor e of I , r es ul t ed i n a G ui del i nes s ent enci ng r ange of t en t o s i xt een mont hs i m pr i s onm ent . B as ed on the s i x m onths D r . M al l or ys erved i n cus t odyand four m ont hs he s erved i n hom e det ent i on, the pr obat i on offi cerr ecomm ended a s e n te n c e o f

tim e s e rv e d a n d th re e y e a rs s u p e rv is e d re le a s e . Som et i m e dur i ng t he pende ncyof l i t i gat i on agai ns tD r . M al l or y , the C o lo ra d o S tate B o a rd o f M e d ica l E x a m in e rs r e v o k e d h is m e d ica l li c e n se . P rio r to-6-

s ent enci ng, D r . M al l or yfi l ed a pro se l et t erw i th the fe der al di s tr i ctcour tas ki ng to w ith d raw h is gu il typ lea; i n resp o n se, th e c o u rtissue d an o rde r no ti n g D r. M al l or yhad l egal r epr es ent at i on, s tr i ki ng the l et t er , and or der i ng the s ent enci ng hear i ng t o pr ocee d. A tt he s ent enci ng hear i ng, D r . M al l or yul t i m at el yt ook r e s p o n s i b i l i t yfo rh i s c o n d u c ti n th e i n s t a n to ffe n s e , s t a t i n g , “ I s h o u l d h a v e k n o wn b e tter, th a t sin c e I h a d ru n a fo u l o f th e law , tha t I sh o u ld n o t h a v e tried to pur chas e a w eapon. ” R . , Supp. V ol . 1 at15- 16. T he di s tr i ctcour tthen ques t i oned D r . M al l or y , bas ed on hi s l et t erw r i t t en t o the court , as t o w hetherhe w ishe d to w ith d raw h is gu il typ lea. A fter co n su lt ing w ith h is co u n sel, D r. M al l or yadvi s ed he c oul d notans w erthe ques t i on atthatt i m e; the courtthen c o n tin u e d th e se n ten c in g h e a rin g fo r th e p u rp o se o f a llo w in g D r. M a llo rytim e to det erm i ne w hetherhe w i s hed t o w i thdr aw hi s pl ea a nd, i f not , t o s ubm i ta s i gned st at em ent t o the cou rt . In so doing, the d i stri ctcou rtci t ed the seven-partt est r equi r ed t o be addr es s ed i n w i t hdr aw al of a gui l typl ea. A tthe conc l us i on of the h e a rin g , D r. M a llo rysta ted , “I’ m n o t sa y in g th a t I n e c e ss a rilya m w ith o u t g u ilt , okay . A nd I ’ m j us tw onder i ng, do y ou have a nyl at i tude i n i m pos i ng a s ent ence w her ebyI m i ghts t i l l pr act i ce medi ci ne aga i n s om ew her e i n thes e U ni t ed St at es ?” Id . at21. T he di s t r i ctcour tr es ponded: [T]he onl yr eas on y ou’ r e i n fr ontof m e t odayr el at es t o the G overnm ent ’ s char ges agai ns ty ou forvi ol at i ng cert ai n fede r al s t a tu t e s r e g a r d i n g a t t e mp t s b yy o u . . . t o p u r c h a s e a we a p o n a ta t i me w hen y ou had pendi ng fel onychar ges agai ns ty ou i n A r apahoe C o u n ty an d b a s e d o n th e a n s w e rs th a t yo u g a v e in th e a p p lic a tio n s .-7-

. . . I have no di r ectj ur i s di ct i on overw hatthe C ol or ado M edi cal B oar d . . . m aydo. . . . So w hetherornotm ydeci s i on w i l l al l ow y ou to p ra c tice m e d icin e o r n o t p ra c tice m e d icin e is n o t so m e th in g th a t I w ill d e c id e , b e c a u se I c a n ’t d e c id e it. Id . a t 2 1 -2 2 . D ay s l at er , D r . M al l or ys i gned and f i l ed w i th the courta pl eadi ng, s t at i ng he di d notw i s h t o w i t hdr aw hi s gui l typl ea. A tthe s econd s ent enci ng hear i ng, nei t herpart yfi l ed anyobj ect i ons t o the pr es ent ence r eport , i ncl udi ng the s ent enci ng r ecomm endat i ons . C ouns el forthe governm entagr eed w i th the p r e s e n t e n c e r e p o rt ’ s r e c o mme n d a t i o n th a tDr . M a l l o ryr e c e i v e a s e n t e n c e o f t i me s erved, butal s o r eques t ed he r ece i ve the r ecomm ended thr ee y ear s s upervi s ed r el eas e, notas a puni t i ve meas ur e aga i ns thi m , butforthe purpos es of cha ngi ng hi s at t i tude t o t ake r es pons i bi l i t yforhi s act i ons , s afe guar di ng the comm uni ty , and p ro te c tin g D r. M a llo ry’s o w n w e lfa re . P rio r to se n ten c in g , D r. M a llo ryre a ffirm e d h is g u iltyp lea a n d u lti m a tely acknow l edged that“i n t he br oad s ens e of a ppl i cabl e fe der al l aw ” he w as gui l tyof t h e c h a r g e . R. , S u p p . Vo l . 2 a t1 4 . He f u r th e rs t a t e d , “ th e r e i s r e mo r s e o n my par tt hat. . . I s houl dn’ thave tr i ed t o s eek a w eapon. . . . A nd agai n, I do apol ogi ze forbei ng i n vi ol at i on of fe der al l aw . ” Id . at16. I n i m pos i ng the s ent ence , the di s t r i ctcourtexpl i ci t l ys t at ed i thad cons i der ed the pr es ent ence r eportfac tual fin d ing s, the a d v isoryG u idelines , an d the fac tors set fo rth in 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 (a),-8-

and then s ent ence d D r . M al l or yatthe l ow end of the G ui del i nes r ange t o t en m o n th s tim e a lr e a d ys e rv e d a n d th re e y e a rs s u p e rv is e d re le a s e . A ft erD r . M al l or yfi l ed hi s not i ce of appea l , hi s appoi nt ed couns el fi l ed an A nd ers ap p ea l bri ef. C o u n sel stat ed h e c o n d u cted a d il igen t r ev iew o f th e re co rd and coul d noti n good fai t h advanc e an a r gum entthe r ecor d s uppor t ed a c hal l enge t o ei t hert he vol unt aryand i nt el l i gentchar act erof the pl ea i n the ca s e orthe rea so n ab lene ss o f th e se n tenc e. In su p p o rt , co u n sel p o inted o u t th e d istri ct co u rt sen tenc ed D r. M all o ryat th e low en d o f th e a p p li ca b le G u idelines ran g e. In ad d it ion , co u n sel m o v ed fo r an o rde r pe rm itti n g h is w ith d raw al as D r. M all o ry ’s c o u n s e l. See A nd ers , 386 U . S. at744. Pur s uantt o A n d e rs , this co u rtg av e D r. M al l oryan o pp ortun i t yt o respon d to hi s coun sel ’s A nd ers b ri e f. See i d. D r. M a llo ry file d a re s p o n s e . In hi s pr o s e re sp o n se , D r. M a llo rym a k e s n u m e ro u s a ss e rtio n s u n re late d to t he i ns t antfede r al char ge, i ncl udi ng: 1) cont es t i ng the C ol or ado St at e B oar d of M edi cal E xami ner s ’ r evoca t i on of hi s l i cens e; 2) ques t i oni ng the s uffi ci encyof t he evi dence s uppor t i ng t he s her i ff’ s offi cer s ’ as s er t i on of pr obabl e ca us e fort he s e a r c h wa r r a n to f

h i s mo t e l r o o m; 3 ) a l l e g i n g c r i mi n a l mi s c o n d u c to f th o s e s a me offi cers ; 4) ass ert i ng t he st at e j ud ge d i d n ot r ead o r expl ai n the charges against h im in h is st ate c ase an d fu rth er c au sed h im to sign the re str ainin g o rde r “b efo re-9-

t he appr opr i at e bl ocks w er e che cked” ; 5) cl ai m i ng the A r apahoe C ountyD i s tr i ct A t t or neym i s r epr es ent ed hi s r es t r ai ni ng or dervi ol at i on w as a vi ol at i on of fe der al law ; an d 6 ) a lleg in g c o u n tyo fficia ls c o n tin u e to h o ld h is “ p ric e les s illeg a lly se ize d p ro p e rty ” h o sta g e . A p t. 6/2 5 /0 7 R e sp . at 1 . T h e o n lya lleg a tio n m a d e w ith resp ec t t o the in stan t case is m ad e in o n e se n tenc e, i n w h ich h e states, “[m ]y acc ept ance of thi s l egal l yi ns uffi ci entpl ea a gr eementw as notvol unt ary . ” Id . I n r es pons e, t he governm entdi d notfi l e a br i ef, buts ubs equent l yfi l ed a l et t er di rect i ng t his cou rtt o sup plem ental authori t i es addressi ng D r. M al l ory ’s pro se re sp o n se . T h e g o v e rn m e n t in d ica ted D r. M a llo ryw a s s e e k in g to c o llate ra lly at t ack hi s “under l y i ng pr i ors t at e fe l onyconvi ct i on” and pr ovi ded author i tythat D r. M all o rym u st assert co m p let e d en ial o f c o u n sel i n the s tat e p roc ee d ing fo r a col l at er al at t ack, w hi ch he fai l ed t o do. I n turn, D r . M al l or yfi l ed a r es pons i ve l et t erw i t h copi es of s t at e courts t amp-fi l ed document s att ache d, expl ai ni ng he n e v e r re c e iv e d a sta te fe lo n yc o n v ictio n b e c a u se th e c h a rg e s re latin g to h is s tate act i on w er e di s m i s s ed aga i ns thi m . A not at i on i n the s t i pul at ed fa ct s i n hi s pl ea a g re e m e n t c o n fir m s s u c h d is m is s a l.

I I . D i s cus s i on A s r e q u i r e d b y A nd ers , w e h av e c o n d u cted a f u ll ex am ination o f th e re co rd b e fo re u s . See 38 6 U . S . at74 4. T urni ng fi rs tt o D r. M al l ory ’s pro se as s er t i onN ei t herD r . M al l or ynorhi s appoi nt ed att or neypr ovi ded the tr ans cr i ptof 3 hi s pl ea he ar i ng. A n appel l antm aki ng a cl ai m has a r es pons i bi l i tyt o pr ovi de th o s e p o rt io n s o f

th e re c o rd o n a p p e a l w h ic h s u p p o rt h is c la im . See S cottv. Hern , 2 1 6 F . 3 d 8 9 7 , 9 1 2 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). -10- t hat hi s guil t yplea w as i nv olunt ary , w e con strue hi s pro se p le a d in g s lib e ra lly. See Hai nes v. Ker ner , 404 U . S. 519, 520 ( 1972) . W hi l e w e cons true pro se p lead ing s m o re li b era ll y , w e h av e re p ea tedlyh eld th at pe rfu n ctoryo r cu rsory r efe r ence t o an i s s ue, l i ke her e, unacc om pani ed bys om e effor tata deve l oped a rg u m e n t, is in a d e q u a te to w a rr a n t c o n s id e ra tio n . See Uni t ed Stat es v. A lm ar az , 306 F. 3d 1031, 1041 ( 10t h C i r . 2002) ( r el y i ng on Uni t ed Stat es v. LaHue , 261 F. 3d 993, 1009 ( 10t h C i r . 2001) , and Fem edee rv. Haun , 227 F. 3d 1244, 1255 ( 1 0 t h C i r . 2 0 0 0 ) ) . M o r e s p e c i fi c a l l y, w e h a v e h e l d a c o n c l u s o ry s t a t e m e n tb y a defe ndant“abs entanyot herevi dence , [i s ] i ns uffi ci entt o s how thathi s pl ea w as i nvol unt ary . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Kr am er , 1 6 8 F .3 d 1 1 9 6 , 1 2 0 0 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ).

I n t hi s cas e, D r . M al l or ys t at es hi s pl ea a gr eementw as i nvol unt aryi n one cur s or ys ent ence and has notot herw i s e pr ovi ded addi t i onal ar gum entora copyof t he pl ea hear i ng t r ans cr i pt i n s uppor t of hi s cont ent i on. I n addi t i on, t he di s tr i ct 3 c o u rt tw ice g a v e h im th e o p p o rtu n ity , at tw o d iffe re n t se n ten c in g h e a rin g s, to d e c id e w h e th e r to w ith d ra w h is g u iltyp lea , an d e a c h tim e , af ter c o n su ltatio n w ith hi s at t or ney , D r . M al l or yi ndi cat ed he w ant ed t o pr ocee d w i th s ent enci ng and a c k n o w led g e d h e w a s g u iltyo f b re a k in g th e law a s c h a rg e d . A n yd o u b t ab o u t h is-11-

gui l t ypl ea s eems t o have s t emm ed fr om hi s conce rn aboutr egai ni ng hi s m edi cal l i cens e af

t eri tw as r evoked, and notfr om anym i s gi vi ngs abouthi s pr ofes s ed gui l t , w hi ch he r epea t edl yacknow l edged. Fur ther , hi s att orneyon appea l has sta ted h e c o n d u c ted a d ili g e n t re v iew o f th e re c o rd a n d c o u ld n o t in g o o d fa ith advanc e an a r gum entt hatt he r ecor d s uppor t s a cha l l enge t o the vol unt aryand intell igen t cha rac ter of h is plea. T h ese circu m stan ce s, take n tog ethe r w ith D r. M al l or y ’ s uns uppor t ed, cur s or ys t at ementthathi s pl ea a gr eementw as inv o lun tary , w ith o u t m o re, do n o t sup p o rta c lai m . T h u s, b ase d o n the re co rd befor e us , w e ca nnots ayD r . M al l ory ’ s gui l typl ea w as i nvol unt aryforthe p u rp o s e o f

c h a lle n g in g h is c o n v ic tio n . A s t o hi s s ent ence of t en mont hs t i m e s erved and thr ee y ear s s upervi s ed r el eas e, w e r evi ew forr eas onabl enes s the s ent ence ’ s l ength, as gui ded bythe fa c to rs in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ). S e e Un itedS ta tes v . Kris tl , 437 F. 3d 1050, 1053 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) (

percur i am ) . H avi ng m ade s uch a r evi ew , w e fi nd no n o n f riv o lo u s b a sis fo r c h a llen g in g th e se n ten c e im p o se d . T h e d istric t co u rt in th is cas e expl i ci t l ycons i der ed the fa ct or s i n § 3553( a) , and a pr es um pt i on of r e a s o n a b l e n e s s a t t a c h e s t o a s e n t e n c e , l i k e h e r e , w h i c h i s w i th i n th e c o rr e c t l yc a lc u la te d G u id e lin e s ra n g e , w h ic h D r. M a llo ry h a s n o t r e b u tte d . See i d. at1053- 5 5 . In a d d iti o n , D r. M a llo ryh a s n o t p ro v id e d a n ya rg u m e n t p e rta in in g to h is t hr ee- y eart erm of s upervi s ed r el eas e, l eavi ng us t o concl ude, underthe-12-

ci r cumst ance s pr es ent ed i n t he r ecor d, thathi s t erm of s upervi s ed r el eas e i s not u n re a s o n a b le . A s to h is s tate -re late d c laim s, to th e e x ten t th a t D r. M a llo ryis c o llate ra lly at t acki ng anypr i orconvi ct i on, t he governm entcorr ect l ypoi nt s outhe has not c laim e d o r o th e rw ise sh o w n h e w a s d e n ied c o u n se l in h is s tate c a se – a th re sh o ld r equi r ementfora defendanti n a fe der al cr i m i nal cas e col l at er al l yatt acki ng a p ri o r c o n v ic tio n . See Uni t ed Stat es v. C ous i ns , 4 5 5 F . 3 d 1 1 1 6 , 1 1 2 5 (10 th C ir . 2006) ( r el y i ng on C us t is v. Uni t ed Stat es , 5 1 1 U .S . 4 8 5 , 4 8 7 (1 9 9 4 )) , cer t . deni ed , 1 2 7 S . C t. 1 6 2 (2 0 0 6 ), and cer t . deni ed , 1 2 7 S . C t. 70 6 (2 0 0 6 ). H o w e v e r, it appea r s fr om document s pr ovi ded byD r . M al l or yand a s t i pul at ed fa cti n the pl ea agreem ent that the st at e charges aga i nsthim i n A rapaho e C ou ntycri m i nal cas e num ber05- C R - 00609 w er e i n fac tdi s m i s s ed. A s a r es ul t , thi s i s nota mat t erof a c o llate ra l atta c k o n a sta te c o n v ictio n , as th e g o v e rn m e n t in d ica tes . In a n ye v e n t, w e no t e D r. M al l ory ’s pro se a rg u m e n t as it rela tes to th e in sta n t ca se a p p e a rs to cent eron t he s t at e court ’ s r es t r ai ni ng or derand i t s pr ohi bi t i on on pos s es s i ng a gu n. H ow ever, his argum ent m i sses the p oint . Inst ead, the inst ant federal offense s t ems di r ect l yfr om D r . M al l or y ’ s fal s e s t at ementhe w as notunderi ndi ctm entfor a fe l onycr i m e att he t i m e he a t t empt ed t o pur chas e a gun. A s a r es ul t , hi s i ns t ant o ffen se is n o t r elated to the m an d atoryrestrai n ing o rde r. W e f u rth er n o te D r. M al l or yhas nevers ugges t ed s uch s t at e cha r ges w er e notpendi ng agai ns thi m at-13-

th e tim e h e m a d e th e fa lse sta tem e n t.

F in a lly , D r. M a llo ry ’s o th e r c laim s c o n c e rn in g re v o c a tio n o f h is s tate m edi cal l i cens e and the conduc tof ce r t ai n countyoffi ci al s , both dur i ng the s t at ei ni t i at ed s ear ch and s ei zur e and c har ges br oughtagai ns thi m , i nvol ve s t at e ac t i on o v e r w h ich w e d o n o t h a v e ju risd ictio n fo r th e p u rp o se o f o u r re v iew o f

h is fe d e ra l c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e . T h e re fo re , w e w ill n o t a d d re s s th e m o n a p p e a l.

I I I . C oncl us i on F o rt h e s e r e a s o n s , n o me r i t o r i o u s a p p e l l a t e i s s u e e x i s t s . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we gr antcouns el ’ s m ot i on t o w i t hdr aw and D I SM I SS D r. M a llo ry ’s a p p e a l.

E n ter ed b y th e C o u rt: W ADE BRO RBY U ni t ed St at es C i r cui tJ udge