United States v. Rodarte-Morales ( 2011 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
May 20, 2011
TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
__________________________ Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
No. 10-3310
v. (D.C. No. 2:10-CR-20060-CM-1)
(D. Kan.)
REFUGIO RODARTE-MORALES,
a/k/a Jose Lopes-Morales,
Defendant-Appellant.
______________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BARRETT, ANDERSON, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
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This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the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.
After Appellant Refugio Rodarte-Morales pled guilty to one count of
unlawful reentry of a previously deported alien, the district court sentenced him
to twenty-four months imprisonment. Although Mr. Rodarte-Morales appeals his
conviction and sentence, his attorney has filed an Anders brief and a request for
permission to withdraw as counsel which we construe as a motion to withdraw. 1
See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). For the reasons set forth
hereafter, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and dismiss this appeal. Id.
I. Background
On July 19, 2010, pursuant to a plea agreement, Mr. Rodarte-Morales pled
guilty to unlawful reentry of a previously deported alien in violation of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1326(a), with reference to 6 U.S.C. §§ 202(3), 202(4), and 557. As part of the
plea agreement, Mr. Rodarte-Morales stated he understood his guilty plea could
subject him to a maximum statutory punishment of twenty-four months
incarceration and that the district court would consider the United States
Sentencing Guidelines (“Guidelines” or “U.S.S.G.”) when sentencing him. At the
plea hearing, the district court accepted Mr. Rodarte-Morales’s guilty plea,
finding it was freely, voluntarily, and intelligently made and that he admitted to
the essential elements of the crime charged.
1
While no separate motion was filed, in the Anders brief, Mr. Rodarte-
Morales’s counsel “respectfully requests that the Court allow Counsel to
withdraw from further representation of [Mr. Rodarte-Morales] in this matter.”
-2-
Thereafter, a probation officer prepared a presentence report calculating
Mr. Rodarte-Morales’s sentence under the applicable 2009 Guidelines. The
probation officer set the base offense level at 8, under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(a), and
added a twelve-level increase, under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(B), based on its
finding that Mr. Rodarte-Morales had a prior aggravated felony conviction for
delivery of cocaine for which he received a sentence of time served – from July
15, 2009, to November 17, 2009. Based on Mr. Rodarte-Morales’s acceptance of
responsibility, the probation officer also included a three-level reduction, for a
total offense level of 17. A total offense level of 17, together with a criminal
history category of V, resulted in a Guidelines range of forty-six to fifty-seven
months imprisonment. However, despite this calculation of his Guidelines range,
the probation officer determined Mr. Rodarte-Morales’s sentence should be
twenty-four months because he only pled guilty to a statutory maximum penalty
of two years.
Although Mr. Rodarte-Morales did not object to the presentence report, the
government did, arguing a twenty-year maximum penalty and Guidelines range of
forty-six to fifty-seven months imprisonment should apply because Mr. Rodarte-
Morales illegally reentered the country following a previous aggravated felony
drug conviction. In response, the probation officer again noted Mr. Rodarte-
Morales was only advised of the two-year maximum penalty so his plea could
-3-
only be knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered with respect to a twenty-
four-month sentence.
At his sentencing hearing held on November 15, 2010, Mr. Rodarte-
Morales presented no objections to the presentence report, and the government
withdrew its objection to a twenty-four-month sentence. After applying the
offense level of 17 to a lower criminal history category of IV, the district court
calculated the Guidelines range at thirty-seven to forty-six months imprisonment;
neither party objected to this calculation. Instead, Mr. Rodarte-Morales sought a
variant sentence of only twelve months and one day, on grounds: (1) his mother
died when he was fourteen and he had no family life since then; (2) he is illiterate
and has primarily worked in agriculture; (3) he is a chronic alcoholic; (4) his
criminal history is commensurate with substance abuse and primarily includes
misdemeanor crimes of trespassing, marijuana possession, and minor assaults; and
(5) his recent cocaine conviction was uncharacteristic for him, inconsistent with
the rest of his criminal history, and resulted in only a short term of imprisonment,
so that a twelve-level enhancement overestimates its severity. In response, the
government argued Mr. Rodarte-Morales’s criminal history of thirty-five
convictions over thirty years showed his total disrespect for the law and was
vastly under-represented because thirty-one of those convictions were not used to
calculate his criminal history score.
-4-
In imposing a twenty-four-month sentence, the district court explicitly
stated that it had considered the presentence report, the parties’ statements, the
advisory nature of the Guidelines, and the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a). In considering the § 3553(a) factors, the district court stated it
considered the nature and circumstance of the offense and Mr. Rodarte-Morales’s
history and characteristics, including his lengthy criminal record over a thirty-
year span, numerous alcohol-related and marijuana offenses, and his recent
aggravated felony conviction for delivering cocaine. It also recognized Mr.
Rodarte-Morales entered into a plea agreement in which the maximum term of
imprisonment of which he was informed was only twenty-four months and stated
that in light of that circumstance, as well as the sentencing factors, it believed a
twenty-four-month sentence was appropriate to comply with those factors. It
further stated:
[J]ust so the record’s clear in regards to what the court has done on
its sentence, the court has recognized that it has the discretion to
make a variance in regards to the sentence, and in fact has done so in
regards to the 24 months being lower than the guideline range of 37
to 46 months.
Following Mr. Rodarte-Morales’s timely pro se notice of appeal, his
appointed counsel filed an Anders appeal brief explaining no meritorious issues
exist on appeal and requesting permission to withdraw as counsel. See Anders,
386 U.S. at 744. More specifically, he points out Mr. Rodarte-Morales’s sentence
-5-
of twenty-four months does not exceed the statutory maximum penalty of which
he was advised. He also states the district court did not commit any procedural
error in calculating his sentence, and that the twenty-four-month sentence is
substantively reasonable, given it is thirteen months below the low end of the
Guidelines range of thirty-seven to forty-six months imprisonment. In so
asserting, his counsel also notes that after the probation officer unearthed Mr.
Rodarte-Morales’s prior conviction for an aggravated felony, the potential
statutory maximum increased to twenty years punishment and his advisory
Guidelines range increased to thirty-seven to forty-six months imprisonment. As
a result, he acknowledges Mr. Rodarte-Morales could have been put in the
difficult position of withdrawing his plea and facing a lengthier sentence had the
government not withdrawn its objection to the presentence report, recommending
a twenty-four-month sentence based on Mr. Rodarte-Morales’s plea agreement.
Pursuant to Anders, this court gave Mr. Rodarte-Morales an opportunity to
respond to his counsel’s Anders brief. See 386 U.S. at 744. His counsel also
advised he would assist Mr. Rodarte-Morales with any such response. However,
Mr. Rodarte-Morales failed to file a response. The government has filed a notice
of its intent not to file an answer brief in this appeal.
-6-
II. Discussion
As required by Anders, we have conducted a full examination of the record
before us. See id. Nothing in the record indicates Mr. Rodarte-Morales’s plea
was not freely, voluntarily, and intelligently made for the purpose of challenging
his conviction. As to his sentence, we review it for reasonableness as guided by
the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United States v. Kristl, 437 F.3d 1050,
1053 (10th Cir. 2006) (per curiam). Having made such a review, we find no
nonfrivolous basis for challenging the sentence imposed. Nothing in the record
indicates the district court improperly calculated the offense level and criminal
history category or otherwise improperly calculated Mr. Rodarte-Morales’s
sentence. After properly calculating the sentence, the district court sentenced him
to twenty-four months imprisonment – well below the advisory Guidelines range,
which is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness. See id. at 1053-
55. Neither Mr. Rodarte-Morales nor his counsel has presented any nonfrivolous
reason on appeal warranting a lower sentence. See id.
-7-
III. Conclusion
For these reasons, no meritorious appellate issue exists for our review on
direct appeal. Accordingly, we GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw and
DISMISS Mr. Rodarte-Morales’s appeal.
Entered by the Court:
WADE BRORBY
United States Circuit Judge
-8-