United States v. Pryce

Appellate Case: 21-5046 Document: 010110634666 Date Filed: 01/20/2022 Page: 1
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT January 20, 2022
_________________________________
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 21-5046
(D.C. No. 4:20-CR-00329-CVE-1)
TRAVIS PRYCE, (N.D. Okla.)
Defendant - Appellant.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before MATHESON, BRISCOE, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Travis Pryce pled guilty to a child pornography offense and was sentenced. His
counsel submitted an Anders brief stating this appeal presents no non-frivolous grounds
for reversal. After careful review of the record, we agree. Exercising jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and dismiss the appeal.
*
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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent,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.
Appellate Case: 21-5046 Document: 010110634666 Date Filed: 01/20/2022 Page: 2
I. BACKGROUND
Execution of a search warrant at Mr. Pryce’s home led to seizure of computers and
digital storage media containing about 2,930 images of child pornography. He admitted
to downloading and distributing child pornography through a file sharing program.
Mr. Pryce pled guilty without a plea agreement to one count of knowingly
distributing and receiving child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252(a)(2) and
2252(b)(1). At sentencing, the court calculated an advisory Guidelines range of 121 to
151 months. After considering the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the
court sentenced Mr. Pryce to 121 months in prison and 10 years of supervised release.
Mr. Pryce, through counsel, filed a timely notice of appeal. His counsel then filed
an opening brief invoking Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), which “authorizes
counsel to request permission to withdraw where counsel conscientiously examines a
case and determines that any appeal would be wholly frivolous.” United States v.
Calderon, 428 F.3d 928, 930 (10th Cir. 2005). The Anders brief here addresses whether
there are any non-frivolous arguments to challenge the guilty plea or the sentence. It
concludes there are no such arguments.
On the guilty plea, the brief states that because Mr. Pryce did not seek to withdraw
his plea, appellate review is for plain error. The change of plea transcript shows that the
district court complied with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 in accepting Mr.
Pryce’s plea. In the plea colloquy, the court confirmed that Mr. Pryce knowingly,
voluntarily, and competently understood the rights he was waiving and the consequences
of pleading guilty.
2
Appellate Case: 21-5046 Document: 010110634666 Date Filed: 01/20/2022 Page: 3
On the procedural reasonableness of the sentence, the brief states that because Mr.
Pryce did not object to the district court’s calculation of the Guidelines range, appellate
review is for plain error. Counsel has checked the court’s calculation and discerns no
arguable plain error. On the sentence’s substantive reasonableness, counsel notes that
Mr. Pryce’s sentence was presumptively reasonable because it fell at the low end of the
Guidelines range. He finds no basis to overcome the presumption.
This court’s clerk’s office sent the Anders brief to Mr. Pryce and invited him to
respond. He did not do so.
II. DISCUSSION
Anders provides that:
[I]f counsel finds [the defendant’s] case to be wholly
frivolous, after a conscientious examination of it, he should so
advise the court and request permission to withdraw. That
request must, however, be accompanied by a brief referring to
anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
. . . [T]he 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 . . . .
386 U.S. at 744. When counsel submits an Anders brief, we review the record de novo.
See United States v. Leon, 476 F.3d 829, 832 (10th Cir. 2007) (per curiam).
Based on our de novo review of the record, we conclude that none of the issues
addressed in the Anders brief has merit. We have not detected any other non-frivolous
issue.
On the guilty plea, Mr. Pryce did not object to the district court’s conduct of the
Rule 11 change of plea hearing, nor did he ask to withdraw his plea. The Anders brief
3
Appellate Case: 21-5046 Document: 010110634666 Date Filed: 01/20/2022 Page: 4
thus correctly advises that Mr. Pryce may challenge the plea only for plain error. See
United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 59 (2002); United States v Carillo, 860 F.3d 1293,
1300 (10th Cir. 2017). We have reviewed the change of plea transcript and find it reveals
no error under Rule 11. The court addressed Mr. Pryce in open court to inform him of
the charge; the statutory range of punishment and potential fines, special assessments,
forfeiture, and restitution; the court’s obligation to calculate an applicable advisory
Guidelines range and to consider the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); and
the waiver of his rights, including his trial rights, by pleading guilty. The court
determined that Mr. Pryce understood the foregoing. It also addressed Mr. Pryce to
determine that his plea was voluntary. The court further determined there was a factual
basis for the plea. See ROA, Vol. 2 at 6-36. The record demonstrates compliance with
Rule 11 and that his plea was “a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative
courses of action” available. United States v. Muhammad, 747 F.3d 1234, 1239 (10th
Cir. 2014) (quotations omitted). We see no ground on which Mr. Pryce could allege
error, let alone plain error.
On the sentence, the Anders brief again correctly states that appellate review of
procedural reasonableness must be for plain error because Mr. Pryce did not challenge
the calculation of the Guidelines range or otherwise object on the ground of procedural
error. See United States v. Henson, 9 F.4th 1258, 1289 (10th Cir. 2021); United States v.
Martinez-Barragan, 545 F.3d 894, 899 (10th Cir. 2008). We have reviewed the
sentencing record, including the sentencing transcript. We discern no plain error—
indeed, no error—in the court’s Guidelines calculation, consideration of the § 3553(a)
4
Appellate Case: 21-5046 Document: 010110634666 Date Filed: 01/20/2022 Page: 5
factors, or explanation of the sentence. See ROA, Vol. 2 at 37-52. On substantive
reasonableness, because the court chose 121 months—the bottom end of the Guidelines
range—the sentence is presumptively reasonable. See United States v. Durham, 902 F.3d
1180, 1238 (10th Cir. 2018); United States v. Balbin-Mesa, 643 F.3d 783, 788 (10th Cir.
2011). We see no basis on which Mr. Pryce could overcome that presumption. See
United States v. Kristl, 437 F.3d 1050, 1055 (10th Cir. 2006).1
III. CONCLUSION
Our independent review of the record found no non-frivolous ground for reversal
based on the issues raised in the Anders brief. Nor have we uncovered any other non-
frivolous arguments for appeal. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and dismiss the
appeal.
Entered for the Court
Scott M. Matheson, Jr.
Circuit Judge
1
The Anders brief also concluded that the term and conditions of supervised
release are not open to a non-frivolous appellate challenge. We agree.
5