Court Opinion

ID: 9366408
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-26 18:01:50.839958+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:52.056429
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 22-2072     Document: 010110804180       Date Filed: 01/26/2023    Page: 1
                                                                                  FILED
                                                                      United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                         January 26, 2023
                          _________________________________
                                                                          Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                              Clerk of Court
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

        Plaintiff - Appellee,

  v.                                                          No. 22-2072
                                                    (D.C. No. 2:22-CR-00672-MIS-1)
  CESAR GUSTAVO PAYAN-CARRILLO,                                 (D. N.M.)

        Defendant - Appellant.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before MATHESON, KELLY, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges.**
                   _________________________________

       Defendant-Appellant Cesar Gustavo Payan-Carrillo challenges the district

 court’s imposition of an 18-month consecutive sentence for violation of his

 conditions of supervised release. That sentence runs consecutive to a 24-month

 sentence imposed for his 2021 unlawful reentry. United States v. Cesar Gustavo

 Payan-Carrillo, No. 22-CR-89 (D.N.M. June 1, 2022) (ECF No. 30). Mr. Payan-

 Carrillo does not challenge the 2021 unlawful reentry sentence as that sentence was

       *
          This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines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.
        **
           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.
Appellate Case: 22-2072    Document: 010110804180        Date Filed: 01/26/2023    Page: 2

 imposed pursuant to a fast-track plea agreement with an appeal waiver. Anders Br. at

 1; 2 R. 15. Mr. Payan-Carrillo’s counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief

 pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), submitting that there are no

 meritorious issues on appeal. On review of the record and the law, we agree.

 Therefore, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and dismiss the appeal.

                                          Background

       On or about September 8, 2021, Mr. Payan-Carrillo illegally reentered the

 United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) & (b), as well as in violation of his

 supervised release imposed in a 2016 unlawful reentry case. 1 R. 22–23. The district

 court held a joint hearing on the revocation matter and sentencing in the 2021 reentry

 case. At the hearing, the court found Mr. Payan-Carrillo voluntarily admitted to the

 violation and waived his right to a hearing in connection with the violation report.

 2 R. 3–4. The court considered Mr. Payan-Carrillo’s argument that past convictions

 may have resulted in overly punitive sentences based on incorrect treatment of a past

 marijuana charge as an aggravated felony but was also concerned about his past

 dangerous behavior associated with prior convictions. Id. 10–12, 16–17.

                                       Discussion

       Under Anders, counsel may request permission to withdraw if upon thorough

 examination of the record, counsel finds no non-frivolous basis for an appeal. United

 States v. Calderon, 428 F.3d 928, 930 (10th Cir. 2005). After counsel submits a brief

                                            2
Appellate Case: 22-2072    Document: 010110804180        Date Filed: 01/26/2023       Page: 3

 describing any potential appealable issues to the court and to her client, the defendant

 may then file a response containing his own arguments. Id. Despite being notified of

 his entitlement and granted additional time to do so, Mr. Payan-Carrillo did not file a

 response to counsel’s Anders brief. The government also declined to file a response.

       Counsel’s Anders brief identifies two potentially appealable issues: (1) the

 procedural and substantive reasonableness of the revocation sentence and (2) abuse

 of the district court’s discretion in running the revocation and reentry sentences

 consecutively. Anders Br. at 3. We have conducted our own examination of the

 record, see Calderon, 428 F.3d at 930, and after having done so, we can discern no

 non-frivolous basis for an appeal.

       A. Reasonableness of the revocation sentence

       As no procedural issues were raised at the sentencing hearing, we would

 review the procedural reasonableness of Mr. Payan-Carrillo’s revocation sentence for

 plain error. United States v. Gantt, 679 F.3d 1240, 1246 (10th Cir. 2012). We would

 generally review a sentence’s substantive reasonableness for abuse of discretion, but

 a sentence imposed after revocation of supervised release is generally upheld unless

 “plainly unreasonable.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States

 v. Rodriguez-Quintanilla, 442 F.3d 1254, 1256–57 (10th Cir. 2006). Here, the

 district court indicated that it had reviewed the violation report and the sentencing

 factors applicable to supervised release violations. 2 R. 15. The court then

 calculated Mr. Payan-Carrillo’s advisory Guidelines range. Id. 16. Defendant’s new

 reentry offense constituted a Grade B violation of his supervised release, and, with a

                                            3
Appellate Case: 22-2072    Document: 010110804180       Date Filed: 01/26/2023    Page: 4

 criminal history category of IV, Mr. Payan-Carrillo’s Guidelines range was 12 to 18

 months. U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a). The court thus correctly calculated the advisory

 Guidelines range and sentenced Mr. Payan-Carrillo within it. See 2 R. 16.

 Therefore, the sentence is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness. See Rita v.

 United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347 (2007); United States v. Leonhardt, 301 F. App’x

 817, 820 (10th Cir. 2008) (unpublished). We discern no procedural error to rebut

 that presumption, much less one that is plain. Likewise, we see no nonfrivolous basis

 to challenge the court’s exercise of its discretion in imposing a Guidelines-range

 sentence.

       B. The decision to order the sentences consecutively

       We would also review the decision to order consecutive sentences for abuse of

 discretion. Rodriguez-Quintanilla, 442 F.3d at 1256. And, as earlier stated, a

 sentence imposed after revocation of supervised release is generally upheld unless

 “plainly unreasonable.” Id. at 1256–57. In addition to the factors outlined in 18

 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the court’s discretion to order sentences consecutively or

 concurrently is informed by applicable policy statements of the United States

 Sentencing Commission. Id. Relevant here, U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f) states that

       [a]ny term of imprisonment imposed upon the revocation of probation
       or supervised release shall be ordered to be served consecutively to any
       sentence of imprisonment that the defendant is serving, whether or not
       the sentence of imprisonment being served resulted from the conduct
       that is the basis of the revocation of probation or supervised release.

                                            4
Appellate Case: 22-2072    Document: 010110804180         Date Filed: 01/26/2023    Page: 5

 18 U.S.C. § 7B1.3(f). The defendant carries the burden to demonstrate why ordering

 consecutive sentences would be an abuse of discretion. Rodriguez-Quintanilla, 442

 F.3d at 1256.

       According to the record, after indicating its concerns and considering both

 parties’ arguments, the district court explained its rationale for ordering the sentences

 successively. The district court had sentenced Mr. Payan-Carrillo to the low end of

 the advisory Guidelines in the 2021 unlawful reentry case but remained concerned

 about his past dangerous behavior. 2 R. 7, 16–17. For these reasons, it determined

 that a Guidelines-range, consecutive sentence in the revocation case was warranted.

 Id. 16. We can see no reason to challenge the district court’s exercise of its

 authority. See United States v. Contreras-Martinez, 409 F.3d 1236, 1241–42 (10th

 Cir. 2005). Thus, there is no perceivable basis for appeal.

       APPEAL DISMISSED. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

                                             Entered for the Court

                                             Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
                                             Circuit Judge

                                             5