United States v. Helbach

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 18 2001
TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
No. 00-3253
v. (D.C. No. 99-CR-10158-MLB)
(Kansas)
HILTON A. HELBACH,
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before SEYMOUR, McKAY, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges.
Hilton Helbach pled guilty to one count of attempting to receive child
pornography. The district court adopted the Sentencing Guidelines calculation of
the U.S. Probation Service, to which there was no objection from Mr. Helbach.
Mr. Helbach’s counsel did present arguments in support of a motion for a
*
After examining appellant’s brief and the 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) and 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judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case,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, or 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.
downward departure and engaged in an extended colloquy with the court about
those factors. Rec., Vol. II, Doc. 30 at 1-47. Nonetheless, the court rejected Mr.
Helbach’s arguments for a downward departure and sentenced him to 24 months
in prison, as was the recommendation of the presentence report. Id. at 48-58. Mr.
Helbach’s counsel filed a timely notice of appeal and has subsequently filed a
brief in this case pursuant to Tenth Circuit Rule 46.4(B)(1) and Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel also moved for leave to withdraw.
Anders holds that “if counsel finds his case to be wholly frivolous, after a
conscientious examination of it, he should so advise the court and request
permission to withdraw.” Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. Counsel must also submit a
brief “referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.”
Id. The appellant must be furnished with a copy of counsel’s brief and must be
allowed time to raise “any points that he chooses; the court . . . then proceeds,
after a full examination of all the proceedings, to decide whether the case is
wholly frivolous.” Id. If the court finds the case frivolous, it may grant counsel’s
request to withdraw and dismiss the appeal. Id.In his brief, counsel for Mr. Helbach has identified only one potentially
appealable issue for our consideration. That issue is whether the district court
erred in refusing to exercise its discretion to sentence Mr. Helbach to a term of
imprisonment less than that suggested by the Sentencing Guidelines. More
-2-
properly, the issue is whether this Court has jurisdiction to review the district
court’s refusal to depart downwards from the Sentencing Guidelines.
“We have jurisdiction to review a district court’s refusal to depart
downward only when ‘the district court refused to depart because it erroneously
interpreted the Guidelines as depriving it of the power to depart based on the
proffered circumstances.’” United States v. Rowen, 73 F.3d 1061, 1063 (10th Cir.
1996)(quoting United States v. Barrera-Barron, 996 F.2d 244, 245 (10th Cir.),
cert. denied, 510 U.S. 937 (1993)). We have held that a district court’s failure to
explicitly acknowledge its discretion does not make a sentence improper because
we assume the district court is aware of its discretion. Id.In the case at hand, the court was fully aware of its discretion under the
Sentencing Guidelines. During the sentencing of Mr. Helbach, the court
specifically noted that although it chose not to depart downward based on the
factors presented to the court by Mr. Helbach, “I have the authority to impose or
to consider a downward departure.” Rec., vol. II, doc. 30 at 58.
Because the district court clearly understood its power to depart
downwards, this Court has no jurisdiction over the instant appeal. Under the
standards of Anders, we hold that Mr. Helbach’s appeal is wholly without merit.
-3-
We therefore grant counsel leave to withdraw and DISMISS the appeal.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Stephanie K. Seymour
Circuit Judge
-4-