Court Opinion

ID: 9941611
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-16 17:00:59.036888+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:46:48.277822
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-2020     Document: 010111001706       Date Filed: 02/16/2024    Page: 1
                                                                                  FILED
                                                                      United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                        February 16, 2024
                          _________________________________
                                                                          Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                              Clerk of Court
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

        Plaintiff - Appellee,

  v.                                                          No. 23-2020
                                                    (D.C. No. 2:22-CR-00418-RB-1)
  HECTOR BALDERRAMA-CASTRO,                                    (D. N.M.)

        Defendant - Appellant.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before TYMKOVICH, PHILLIPS, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges.
                  _________________________________

        Hector Balderrama-Castro pleaded guilty to one count of reentry of a removed

 alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b). After the district court sentenced

 him to 46 months’ imprisonment, he appealed. On appeal, his counsel moved to

 withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating

 he can identify no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. The government agreed in a notice

 of intent not to file a response brief.

        *
         After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
 unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
 this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
 ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
 precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
 estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
 Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Appellate Case: 23-2020    Document: 010111001706         Date Filed: 02/16/2024   Page: 2

       Counsel and the court notified Mr. Balderrama-Castro of counsel’s filings, and

 the court gave him an opportunity to show why his conviction or sentence should be

 set aside, but he did not respond. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and

 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a), and having conducted the independent review required by

 Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and dismiss the

 appeal.

                                    BACKGROUND

       Mr. Balderrama-Castro is a native and citizen of Mexico who illegally resided

 in the United States from 1996 to 2012. After being deported in 2012, he illegally

 reentered the United States three times. He received an 8-month sentence for his first

 § 1326 conviction in 2017. He was deported in January 2018, but he returned that

 same year and received a 30-month sentence for a second § 1326 conviction. He was

 again deported in December 2020.

       On November 6, 2021, while he still was on supervised release for the second

 § 1326 conviction, federal border patrol agents found him in Doña Ana County, New

 Mexico. He admitted being a citizen of Mexico without legal authorization to be in

 the United States.

       Without a plea agreement, Mr. Balderrama-Castro pleaded guilty to one count

 of violating § 1326. In preparing the presentence report, a probation officer

 determined that, in addition to his two prior convictions for illegal reentry,

 Mr. Balderrama-Castro had a 2009 Colorado conviction for criminal impersonation

 and a 2010 Colorado conviction for stalking-emotional distress. All told, his

                                             2
Appellate Case: 23-2020    Document: 010111001706        Date Filed: 02/16/2024     Page: 3

 criminal history score was 14, placing him in criminal history category VI. With an

 offense level of 17, the advisory Guidelines range was 51 to 63 months.

       Mr. Balderrama-Castro did not challenge the facts presented in the presentence

 report, but he moved for a departure and a variance. He asserted criminal history

 category VI significantly overrepresented his record and requested the court depart

 downward to category IV. He then requested a variance based on the facts that

 beyond the illegal reentry, he was not engaged in any other criminal conduct when

 apprehended; he was a good child who went only as far as elementary school before

 quitting to work; and his elderly mother suffers from serious health conditions. He

 suggested a sentence of time served (15 months) plus three years of supervised

 release, or in the alternative, 31 months’ imprisonment. The government opposed a

 departure or a variance and requested a sentence at the low end of the initially

 calculated Guidelines range.

       At sentencing, the district court granted Mr. Balderrama-Castro’s motion in

 part. Determining that criminal history level V was more representative of his

 circumstances, it departed downward one criminal-history level. The Guidelines

 range thus became 46 to 57 months. But the court denied a variance. While

 expressing sympathy for his mother’s health problems and hope for her recovery, it

 did not perceive that “he has successfully completed any probationary sentence or

 probation term that he has had imposed on him.” R. Vol. 3 at 22. “[P]rogressive

 sentencing has done nothing to deter” Mr. Balderrama-Castro from reentering, and

 “[a] 30-month sentence last time didn’t slow him down in the slightest.” Id. at 23.

                                            3
Appellate Case: 23-2020    Document: 010111001706        Date Filed: 02/16/2024    Page: 4

 Saying it ”hope[d] this sentence is enough to make [him] understand that coming

 back is the absolute worst thing [he] could do,” id. at 24, the court imposed a

 sentence of 46 months’ imprisonment and no supervised release.1

       Mr. Balderrama-Castro appeals.

                                     DISCUSSION

       Under Anders, defense counsel may “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). If

 counsel makes that determination, he must “submit a brief to the client and the

 appellate court indicating any potential appealable issues based on the record.” Id.

 “The client may then choose to submit arguments to the court.” Id. We must then

 fully examine the record “to determine whether defendant’s claims are wholly

 frivolous.” Id. If we find they are, we may dismiss the appeal. See id.

       Here, the Anders procedural requirements have been satisfied: counsel filed

 his motion to withdraw and a brief; counsel served Mr. Balderrama-Castro with his

 filings and the court notified him of his right to respond; and we have fully examined

 the proceedings. Counsel states that he can identify no potential nonfrivolous ground

 for appeal. We agree.

       1
         At the sentencing hearing, the district court also accepted Mr. Balderrama-
 Castro’s admission of violating his supervised release for the second § 1326
 conviction and sentenced him to 18 months’ imprisonment for that violation, with
 14 months to be served concurrently and 4 months consecutively to the sentence it
 imposed in this case. Mr. Balderrama-Castro did not appeal in the supervised release
 case, and that matter is not before us in this appeal.
                                            4
Appellate Case: 23-2020    Document: 010111001706        Date Filed: 02/16/2024     Page: 5

       Mr. Balderrama-Castro has never expressed any dissatisfaction with his guilty

 plea. His notice of appeal and the docketing statement he filed in this court both

 indicate he appealed to challenge his sentence. We thus focus on whether there is a

 nonfrivolous ground to appeal the sentence.

       “We review a trial court’s imposition of a sentence under an abuse of

 discretion standard to determine whether it was reasonable.” United States v. Brooks,

 736 F.3d 921, 941 (10th Cir. 2013). “The reasonableness inquiry has both a

 procedural component and a substantive component.” Id.

       “Procedural reasonableness involves using the proper method to calculate the

 sentence, and encompasses selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or

 failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.” Id. (internal quotation marks

 omitted). Nothing in the record reveals a nonfrivolous issue concerning whether the

 sentence was procedurally unreasonable. Because Mr. Balderrama-Castro did not

 object to any procedural errors, he must show the court committed plain error.

 See United States v. Jackson, 82 F.4th 943, 949 (10th Cir. 2023). We see no error,

 much less plain error. Particularly, it would be frivolous for Mr. Balderrama-Castro

 to challenge the district court’s decision to depart only one criminal-history level,

 instead of the two he requested. See United States v. Hamilton, 413 F.3d 1138, 1146

 (10th Cir. 2005) (“[W]e have clearly held that the extent of downward departure

 chosen by the district court is normally not appealable by a defendant.” (internal

 quotation marks omitted)); see also United States v. Fonseca, 473 F.3d 1109, 1112

 (10th Cir. 2007) (recognizing the court lacks jurisdiction “to review a district court’s

                                             5
Appellate Case: 23-2020     Document: 010111001706         Date Filed: 02/16/2024     Page: 6

 discretionary decision to deny a motion for downward departure on the ground that a

 defendant’s circumstances do not warrant the departure” unless “the denial is based

 on the sentencing court’s interpretation of the Guidelines as depriving it of the legal

 authority to grant the departure” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

        That leaves substantive reasonableness, which “concerns the sentence’s

 length.” Brooks, 736 F.3d at 941-42. A defendant need not object in the district

 court to preserve a challenge to substantive reasonableness. See Jackson, 82 F.4th

 at 949. “A sentencing decision is substantively unreasonable if it exceeds the bounds

 of permissible choice, given the facts and the applicable law.” Id. at 952 (internal

 quotation marks omitted). “In evaluating substantive reasonableness, we afford

 substantial deference to the district court, and determine whether the length of the

 sentence is reasonable given all the circumstances of the case in light of the factors

 set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).” Brooks, 736 F.3d at 942 (internal quotation marks

 omitted). “A within-Guidelines sentence is entitled to a presumption of substantive

 reasonableness on appeal, and we will find an abuse of discretion only if the district

 court was arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or manifestly unreasonable when it

 weighed the permissible § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Craig, 808 F.3d 1249,

 1261 (10th Cir. 2015) (brackets, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted).

        Although it heavily weighed part of § 3553(a)(1) (“the nature and

 circumstances of the offense”) and § 3553(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) (“the need for the

 sentence imposed . . . to reflect the seriousness of the offense, . . . to afford adequate

 deterrence to criminal conduct[, and] to protect the public from further crimes”), the

                                              6
Appellate Case: 23-2020    Document: 010111001706       Date Filed: 02/16/2024      Page: 7

 district court nevertheless sentenced Mr. Balderrama-Castro at the low end of the

 applicable Guidelines range. In light of the circumstances of this case, it would be

 frivolous to argue the court was arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or manifestly

 unreasonable in how it weighed the § 3553(a) factors. Nothing in the record rebuts

 the presumption that the 46-month sentence was substantively reasonable.

                                    CONCLUSION

       For these reasons, we see no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. We grant

 counsel’s motion to withdraw and dismiss the appeal.

                                            Entered for the Court

                                            Timothy M. Tymkovich
                                            Circuit Judge

                                            7