United States v. Jesus Lechuga-Carrillo ( 2008 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
August 29, 2008
TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 08-2016
v. District of New Mexico
JESUS MANUEL LECHUGA- (D.C. No. 07-CR-2092-WJ)
CARILLO,
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before TACHA, KELLY and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges.
Jesus Manuel Lechuga-Carrillo, a native and citizen of Mexico, pleaded
guilty to a one-count information charging him with a violation of 8 U.S.C. §
1326(a)(1), (a)(2), and (b)(2), reentry of a removed alien previously convicted of
a felony. He was sentenced to six months in prison, below the advisory range
under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. He timely appealed his sentence.
His counsel, James Baiamonte, filed an Anders brief and moved to withdraw as
counsel. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Mr. Lechuga-Carrillo
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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 10 th
Cir. R. 32.1.
did not file a response. The government declined to submit a brief. Because we
find that neither Mr. Lechuga-Carrillo nor his counsel raises any non-frivolous
issues on appeal, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and dismiss the appeal.
I. Discussion
Under Anders, a court-appointed defense counsel who believes that any
appeal would be “wholly frivolous” may request permission to withdraw, upon
submission of a brief to the client and the court indicating “anything in the record
that might arguably support the appeal.” Id. at 744. If we conclude, after a full
examination of the record before us, that the appeal is frivolous, we may grant the
motion to withdraw and dismiss the appeal. United States v. Calderon, 428 F.3d
928, 930 (10th Cir. 2005).
Counsel’s Anders brief notes one possible basis for appeal. Counsel
suggests that although Mr. Lechuga-Carrillo received a below-Guidelines
sentence, he “could argue that his sentence was unreasonable and that the district
judge did not adequately consider the statutory concerns other than the advisory
guidelines expressed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).” Aplt’s Br. 6.
The transcript of the sentencing hearing and the presentence report (“PSR”)
adopted by the court establish that the court’s sentence was procedurally proper.
The court fully considered “the nature and circumstances of the offense and the
history and characteristics of the defendant,” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), and
-2-
understood the advisory nature of the guidelines, as demonstrated by its
conclusion that a below-Guidelines sentence was warranted in this case.
After Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586 (2007), we review the
substantive reasonableness of a district court’s sentencing decisions, whether
inside or outside the Guidelines, under a “deferential abuse-of-discretion
standard.” United States v. Smart, 518 F.3d 800, 806 (10th Cir. 2008) (quoting
Gall, 128 S.Ct. at 591). A district court may, in its discretion, conclude that a
non-Guidelines sentence best serves the purposes of sentencing under § 3553(a),
on the condition that it “provide[s] reasoning sufficient to support the chosen
variance.” Smart, 518 F.3d at 807.
In this case, nothing suggests that Mr. Lechuga-Carrillo’s sentence is
unreasonable. At sentencing, the district court accepted the Guidelines
calculation in Mr. Lechuga-Carrillo’s PSR, which correctly determined that Mr.
Lechuga-Carrillo’s total adjusted offense level was ten. That offense level
reflected a base level of eight, see U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(a), a four-point enhancement
because Mr. Lechuga-Carrillo had previously been deported following a felony
conviction, see U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(D), and a two-point adjustment for Mr.
Lechuga-Carrillo’s acceptance of responsibility, see U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. Mr.
Lechuga-Carrillo’s criminal history category was II, owing to his prior felony
conviction in Alabama for possession of a forged instrument and a warrant that
-3-
remained outstanding at the time of his arrest. Accordingly, Mr. Lechuga-
Carrillo’s Guidelines range was eight to fourteen months’ imprisonment.
The district court sentenced Mr. Lechuga-Carrillo to only six months’
imprisonment. In so doing, it adopted a finding made in the PSR that Mr.
Lechuga-Carrillo’s criminal history category was over-represented by his
outstanding warrant, which resulted from his failure to pay a court-ordered fine in
connection with a prior felony conviction. This warrant, however, was quashed
when the district attorney was informed that the defendant had been deported
following the initial conviction. Had the warrant not been issued, Mr. Lechuga-
Carrillo would not have been under a criminal justice sentence when he illegally
reentered the United States, see U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(m), and would therefore not
have received two points on his criminal history score, see U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1. As
a result, the PSR recommended and the district court concluded that a criminal
history category of I was more reflective of Mr. Lechuga-Carrillo’s criminal
history. This suggested a Guidelines range of six to twelve months. Mr.
Lechuga-Carrillo was sentenced at the bottom of this range.
Given that the district court provided reasoning sufficient to support its
downward departure in this case, we see no plausible grounds for arguing that
imposing an already below-Guidelines sentence was beyond the district court’s
discretion.
-4-
II. Conclusion
Finding no non-frivolous arguments on appeal, we GRANT counsel’s
motion to withdraw. The appeal from the judgment of the United States District
Court for the District of New Mexico is DISMISSED.
Entered for the Court,
Michael W. McConnell
Circuit Judge
-5-