United States v. Diaz-Gomez

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
TENTH CIRCUIT April 19, 2016
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
No. 15-2162
v. (D. New Mexico)
(D.C. No. 1:10-CR-00332-JAP-1)
MIGUEL DIAZ-GOMEZ,
Defendant -Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before LUCERO, MATHESON, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.
Mr. Miguel Diaz-Gomez appealed from the district court’s denial of a
motion for sentence reduction. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Mr. Diaz-
Gomez’s counsel filed a brief invoking Anders v. California, 386 U.S 738
(1967), and moving to withdraw based on the absence of any valid grounds
*
Oral argument would not be helpful in this appeal. As a result, we
are deciding the appeal on the briefs. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th
Cir. R. 34.1(G).
This order and judgment does not constitute binding precedent except
under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.
But the order and judgment may be cited for its persuasive value under
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a) and 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A).
for appeal. We conclude that any appellate challenges would be frivolous.
Thus, we grant the motion to withdraw and dismiss the appeal.
I. Anders v. California
Under Anders v. California, attorneys can seek leave to withdraw
from an appeal when they conscientiously examine a case and determine
that an appeal would be frivolous. Id. To obtain leave to withdraw, an
attorney must
submit a brief to the client and the appellate court indicating
any potential appealable issues based on the record. The client
may then choose to submit arguments to the court. The [c]ourt
must then conduct a full examination of the record to determine
whether defendant’s claims are wholly frivolous. If the court
concludes after such an examination that the appeal is
frivolous, it may grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and may
dismiss the appeal.
United States v. Calderon, 428 F.3d 928, 930 (10th Cir. 2005).
Mr. Diaz-Gomez’s counsel filed a brief, and Mr. Diaz-Gomez
bypassed the opportunity to file his own brief. In these circumstances, we
base our decision on (1) the brief filed by defense counsel and (2) the
record on appeal.
II. Basis for Mr. Diaz-Gomez’s Sentence
Mr. Diaz-Gomez pleaded guilty to a drug conspiracy offense and was
sentenced to ten years in prison, the mandatory minimum under 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(b)(1)(A). The United States Probation Office initially calculated Mr.
Diaz-Gomez’s sentencing guideline range between 97 and 121 months
2
based on his total adjusted offense level and criminal history category. But
the probation office modified the range upward to account for the
statutorily required minimum of ten years. See U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1. The
district court adopted the modified guideline range of 120 to 121 months
and sentenced Mr. Diaz-Gomez to 120 months.
III. Mr. Diaz-Gomez’s Response to the Guideline Amendment
In 2014, the Sentencing Commission adopted a retroactive guideline
amendment, retroactively reducing the offense levels relating to specified
quantities of controlled substances. U.S.S.G. app. C. suppl., amend. 782
(2014). Based on this amendment, Mr. Diaz-Gomez moved for a sentence
reduction to 78 months. The probation office concluded that the guideline
sentence would remain at 120 months because of the statutory mandatory
minimum sentence. See U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1 (“Where a statutorily required
minimum sentence is greater than the maximum of the applicable guideline
range, the statutorily required minimum sentence shall be the guideline
sentence.”).
IV. Mr. Diaz-Gomez’s Ineligibility for Relief Under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2)
Section 3582(c)(2) provides “a narrow exception to the rule of
finality” that “applies only to a limited class of prisoners—namely, those
whose sentence was based on a sentencing range subsequently lowered by
the [Sentencing] Commission.” Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 825-
3
827 (2010). This exception does not apply when the defendant is sentenced
to the minimum permitted under a statute. United States v. Smartt, 129
F.3d 539, 542 (10th Cir. 1997).
Mr. Diaz-Gomez was sentenced to 120 months in prison because that
was the mandatory minimum allowed under federal law. 1 Thus, he was not
eligible for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c). In these circumstances,
Mr. Diaz-Gomez lacks any reasonable grounds to appeal the sentence.
V. Conclusion
We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and dismiss the appeal.
Entered for the Court
Robert E. Bacharach
Circuit Judge
1
At sentencing, the district court adopted the presentence report
“without change.” Record on Appeal at 72. The probation report stated that
the offense carried a mandatory minimum of ten years in prison. Id. at 69.
The district court’s statement of reasons incorrectly checked the box
stating: “No count of conviction carries a mandatory minimum sentence.”
Id. at 72. But as a matter of law, the sentence carried a mandatory
minimum of ten years in prison. Thus, the inadvertent checkmark on the
“Statement of Reasons” does not affect the outcome.
4