United States v. Bejarano , 188 F. App'x 758 ( 2006 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS
July 13, 2006
TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
U N ITED STA TES O F A M ER ICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 05-2164
v. D. New M exico
M A RIO A LFO N SO BEJA RA NO, (D.C. No. CR-04-233 M V)
Defendant - Appellant.
OR D ER AND JUDGM ENT *
Before TA CH A, Chief Circuit Judge, HA RTZ, and TYM KOVICH, Circuit
Judges.
M ario Alfonso Bejarano pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent
to distribute over 500 grams of a mixture containing methamphetamine, and was
sentenced to 120 months’ imprisonment. He appealed and his counsel has filed
an Anders brief stating the issues that could possibly be raised on appeal and
explaining why they have no merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738*
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not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,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. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and
judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and
conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
(1967). M r. Bejarano w as sent a copy of his counsel’s Anders brief and motion to
withdraw, and was directed to respond by April 24, 2006. He did not respond.
After reviewing the record, we agree that there are no meritorious issues to be
raised on appeal. W e grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and dismiss the appeal.
According to the plea agreement, M r. Bejarano was a passenger in a car
when it was stopped for speeding on Interstate 40 in New M exico. A consent
search of the vehicle revealed 20 packages of methamphetamine. He was
arrested, and agreed to plead guilty to count 1 of a tw o-count indictment. A
presentence report (PSR) assigned M r. Bejarano three criminal-history points,
placing him in criminal-history category II, which, combined w ith a total offense
level of 25, created a guidelines sentencing range of 63-78 months. The PSR also
noted, however, that a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence applied.
M r. Bejarano filed an objection to the PSR, contending that because the
guidelines had been rendered advisory by United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220(2005), “someone such as M r. Bejarano can be horizontally moved from Criminal
History category II to I and be eligible for safety valve,” R. Vol. 2 Add. at 1,
which would permit the court to sentence under the guidelines rather than impose
the mandatory minimum. See United States Sentencing Guidelines § 5C1.2 (court
shall impose a sentence w ithin guidelines range, without regard to statutory
minimum sentence, if, among other things, “the defendant does not have more
-2-
than 1 criminal history point”); 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) (same). The district court
ruled that M r. Bejarano was not eligible for safety-valve relief.
The procedure for appointed counsel to withdraw on appeal is set out in
Anders, 386 U.S. at 744:
[I]f counsel finds his case to be w holly frivolous, after a
conscientious examination of it, he should so advise the court and
request permission to withdraw. That request must . . . be
accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that might
arguably support the appeal. A copy of counsel’s brief should be
furnished the indigent and time allowed him to raise any points that
he chooses; the court— not counsel— then proceeds, after a full
examination of all the proceedings, to decide whether the case is
wholly frivolous. If it so finds it may grant counsel’s request to
withdraw and dismiss the appeal insofar as federal requirements are
concerned, or proceed to a decision on the merits, if state law so
requires. On the other hand, if it finds any of the legal points
arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous) it must, prior to
decision, afford the indigent the assistance of counsel to argue the
appeal.
In her Anders brief, counsel for M r. Bejarano states that M r. Bejarano’s criminal-
history points render him ineligible under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(1) for the safety-
valve provision and that Booker does not give the district court discretion to
modify criminal-history points to make a defendant eligible for safety-valve
relief. W e agree with counsel. See United States v. Brehm, 442 F.3d 1291, 1300
(11th Cir. 2006) (“Booker did not render the calculation of eligibility
requirements for safety-valve relief advisory”); United States v. Barrero, 425
F.3d 154, 156-58 (2d Cir. 2005) (same); United States v. M cKoy, No. 05-2461,
2006 W L 1668061, at *4 (3d Cir. June 19, 2006) (same); see also United States v.
-3-
Payton, 405 F.3d 1168, 1173 (10th Cir. 2005) (finding facts that make the
defendant ineligible for safety-valve relief does not violate Booker). Nor do w e
see anything else in the record that would present a nonfrivolous issue on appeal.
W e note that the district court expressed concern about whether M r. Bejarano had
received proper advice concerning the plea agreement. But when questioned
whether he knew that he was “going to be getting 120 months,” he responded, “I
knew it.” R. Vol. 4 at 24. In any event, “[i]neffective assistance of counsel
claims should be brought in collateral proceedings, not on direct appeal.” United
States v. Galloway, 56 F.3d 1239, 1240 (10th Cir. 1995) (en banc).
After an independent review of the record, we agree that any potential issue
to be raised on appeal would be “wholly frivolous.” Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. W e
therefore GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw and DISM ISS the appeal.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Harris L Hartz
Circuit Judge
-4-