Opinion ID: 164396
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: Because Mr. Garibay-Anguiano raised neither of his issues on appeal in the district court, we review them for plain error. United States v. Ruiz-Gea, 340 F.3d 1181, 1185 (10th Cir. 2003). “To notice plain error . . . the error must (1) be an actual error that was forfeited; (2) be plain or obvious; and (3) affect substantial rights . . . .” United States v. Edgar , 348 F.3d 867, 871 (10th Cir. 2003). Even if these conditions are satisfied, we have discretion to reverse only if the error “seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. Mr. Garibay-Anguiano’s court-appointed counsel, Mr. Williams, filed a 1 motion for leave to withdraw as counsel pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). In his brief to this Court, Mr. Williams provided a succinct description of Mr. Garibay-Anguiano’s claims and stated that, in his view, this appeal is meritless and frivolous. Finding that counsel has satisfied his obligations under Anders, we GRANT Mr. Williams’s motion. In his brief, Mr. Garibay-Anguiano denotes five separate grounds for 2 appeal. Four of these grounds, however, contest the adequacy of his indictment. Thus, we discuss them together. -3-