Source: http://ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/2001/06/00-3124.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 18:07:55+00:00

Document:
Appellant Silvestre Guebara was indicted for conspiracy to knowingly possess with intent to distribute 1000 kilograms of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846 and for knowingly possessing with intent to distribute approximately 100 pounds of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of marijuana in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). In exchange for the government's agreement to dismiss the conspiracy count, appellant entered a plea of guilty to possession with intent to distribute. The district court accepted appellant's plea and ordered preparation of a presentence investigation report ("PSR").
Apparently pursuant to the PSR, which recommended a two-level offense level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, the district court sentenced appellant to sixty-three months imprisonment, six years of supervised release, a $100 assessment, and ineligibility for all federal benefits for a period of five years. Appellant challenges the sentence on two grounds: first, that the sentencing court double counted a 1994 battery conviction in calculating his criminal history category, and second, that the court should have decreased his offense level under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 for minor participation.(1) Exercising jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 and 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
In sentencing appeals, "[w]e review the district court's factual findings under the clearly erroneous standard and review its applications of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo." United States v. Roberts, 185 F.3d 1125, 1144 (10th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 120 S. Ct. 1960 (2000). We "'giv[e] due deference to the district court's application of the guidelines to the facts.'" United States v. Vallo, 238 F.3d 1242, 1250 (10th Cir. 2001) (quoting United States v. Patron-Montano, 223 F.3d 1184, 1188 (10th Cir. 2000)). The government argues that a plain error standard of review should apply in this appeal because appellant did not make his arguments before the sentencing court. As explained below, our review of the record would require us to reject appellant's arguments even if we assumed that he properly preserved his objections during sentencing.
Counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED. Appellant's motion to have counsel appointed is DENIED, and his sentence is AFFIRMED.
1. Appellant's appointed counsel filed an Anders brief characterizing this appeal as frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967) (permitting counsel who considers an appeal to be wholly frivolous to advise the court of that fact, request permission to withdraw from the case, and submit a brief referring to portions of the record that arguably support the appeal). He filed a motion asking for permission to withdraw and appointment of new counsel for the appeal.
We note that appellant's counsel did not designate the transcript of the sentencing hearing as part of the record on appeal. Appellant states in his response, "My attorney has failed to send me transcripts from my sentencing after . . . 10 letters written to him." (Appellant's Resp. at 2.) We conclude that appellant's challenges can be resolved without the transcript.
2. Appellant's Response appears to challenge another aspect of his criminal history computation. He states, "I also feel the Courts failed to supply adequate information on Page 10 of my [PSR] on a D.U.I. making it unfair to use [it] . . . and allow one point for this offense." (Appellant's Resp. at 1.) Although the PSR excluded the date of that offense as unknown, it did include other information--the court in which appellant pleaded guilty, the docket number, the date of sentencing, and the sentence--making it fair to include the offense in calculating his criminal history category.
If a defendant has received a lower offense level by virtue of being convicted of an offense significantly less serious than warranted by his actual criminal conduct, a reduction for a mitigating role under this section ordinarily is not warranted because such defendant is not substantially less culpable than a defendant whose only conduct involved the less serious offense.
U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b) cmt. 4.
Appellant attacks as false a Drug Enforcement Agency official's testimony to the effect that appellant was not a minor participant in an offense. Because the district court did not have a duty to decrease sua sponte appellant's offense level, the attack is to no avail.

References: § 2
 § 841
 § 3
 § 3742
 § 1291
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 3