Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James WRIGHT, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-01-24
Citations: 23 F. App'x 990
Docket Number: No. 00-4164
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James WRIGHT, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 23
Pages: 990–990

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James WRIGHT, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 00-4164.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Jan. 24, 2002.
Before TACHA, Chief Judge, PORFILIO, Circuit Judge, and BRORBY, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
PORFILIO, Circuit Judge.
After examining the brief and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to grant the defendant's 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 ordered submitted without oral argument.
Defendant Wright pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and one count of carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). He was sentenced to 84 months on the drug count and a separate 60-month consecutive term on the firearm count for a total of 144 months followed by 5 years of supervised release. Defendant appeals.
Counsel for the defendant has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and has requested leave to withdraw. Anders holds that if counsel finds an appeal "to be wholly frivolous, after a conscientious examination of it, he should so advise the court and request permission to withdraw." Id. at 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396.
After the Anders brief was filed, the defendant was given three separate opportunities to respond. Neither the defendant himself nor the government filed a responsive brief.
After a thorough review of the record, including the transcripts from the plea and sentencing hearings, and counsel's brief, the court concludes there are no meritorious issues for appeal. The defendant's guilty pleas were knowing and voluntary. The sentence imposed was within the applicable guideline range, and the district court did not exceed the statutory maximum sentence.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Counsel's request to withdraw is GRANTED. The mandate will issue forthwith.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.