United States v. Montano , 359 F. App'x 939 ( 2010 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
January 8, 2010
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 09-7048
(D.C. No. 6:08-CR-00041-RAW-4)
JORGE MONTANO, a/k/a Jorge (E.D. Okla.)
Cardenas,
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before MURPHY, McKAY, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.
A jury convicted Jorge Montano of one count of conspiracy to possess with
intent to distribute and distribution of controlled substances (“Count One”) and
one count of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute (“Count Two”).
The jury concluded that less than one hundred grams of marijuana was
attributable to Montano. The district court sentenced Montano to seventy months’
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist 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not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,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.
imprisonment on Count One and sixty months on Count Two. Montano
announced at the sentencing hearing that he intended to appeal because he thought
the sentence on Count One was excessive. After sentencing, and at the request of
the government but outside the presence of defense counsel, the court reduced the
sentence on Count One to sixty months. By the time Montano received notice of
the sentence modification, however, he had already filed his notice of appeal.
Montano’s attorney has filed a brief under the authority of Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967). Neither Montano nor the government has filed briefs in this
matter.
Pursuant to Anders, Montano’s counsel has informed this court that this
appeal is wholly frivolous and has requested to withdraw. See id. at 744. As for
our obligation under Anders, see id., we have fully examined the record and agree
with counsel that this appeal is frivolous. The sentencing issue that triggered the
appeal in the first instance has been mooted; the evidence was sufficient to
sustain Montano’s conviction; and the evidence of another conspiracy presented
at trial could not have confused the jury.
-2-
After reviewing the record on appeal, we see no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore DISMISS this appeal and GRANT counsel’s motion to
withdraw.
Entered for the Court
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
-3-