United States v. Varela-Maldonado ( 2019 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
January 25, 2019
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
No. 18-2078
v. (D.C. No. 1:15-CR-01516-WJ-1)
(D. N.M.)
JUAN CARLOS VARELA-
MALDONADO,
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before PHILLIPS, McKAY, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.
After examining defense counsel’s Anders brief and the 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). This
case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Defendant Juan Carlos Varela-Maldonado pled guilty to conspiring to distribute
methamphetamine, distributing methamphetamine, possessing methamphetamine with
intent to distribute, and illegally possessing firearms and ammunition. The district court
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of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.
calculated an advisory sentencing range of 168 to 210 months and sentenced Defendant to
a total sentence of 150 months of imprisonment.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. His appellate defense counsel
subsequently filed a brief asserting that there are no non-frivolous issues to appeal and
seeking to withdraw as counsel pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
Defendant and the government were both given the opportunity to file a response to the
Anders brief, but neither has chosen to do so.
When defense counsel files an Anders brief, we conduct “a full examination of all
the proceedings[] to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.” Id. at 744. We have
reviewed the entire record in this case and have seen nothing which would call into
question the validity of Defendant’s plea of guilty, the correctness of the district court’s
sentencing determinations, or the reasonableness of the below-guidelines sentence
imposed by the district court. Nor does the record reveal any other potentially
meritorious issues that Defendant could pursue on appeal.
We accordingly GRANT defense counsel’s motion to withdraw and DISMISS the
appeal.
Entered for the Court
Monroe G. McKay
Circuit Judge
-2-