Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
United States of America v. JOSE VASQUEZ-RAMIREZ
Case Number: 07-4034
Judge: Robert H. Henry
Court: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Plaintiff's Attorney: Not Listed
Denver, CO - Criminal defense lawyer represented defendant with a one count of conspiring to distribute more that fifty grams of methamphetamine charge.
Jose Vasquez-Ramirez pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to
distribute more that fifty grams of methamphetamine, a violation of 21 U.S.C. §
846. Applying United States Sentencing Guidelines § 5C1.2, the safety valve
provision, the district court sentenced Mr. Vasquez-Ramirez to eighty-seven
months’ imprisonment, the low end of the Guideline range and well below the
ten-year minimum sentence set forth in 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A).
On appeal, Mr. Vasquez-Ramirez’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Counsel reports that
“[d]efendant is unhappy with his sentence, however, counsel is not aware of any
appealable issues in this case.” Aplt’s Br. at 14.
Under Anders, counsel may “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). In
such a case, “counsel must submit a brief to the client and the appellate court
indicating any potential appealable issues based on the record.” Id. The client is
then permitted to submit arguments to the court in response. Id. The court must
then fully examine the record “to determine whether defendant’s claims are
wholly frivolous.” Id. If so, the court may dismiss the appeal. Id.
Here, Mr. Vasquez-Ramirez was served with his counsel’s brief. However,
Mr. Vasquez-Ramirez has not informed the court of any issues he wishes to raise
on appeal. Based on our independent review of the record, we agree with counsel
that there are no non-frivolous grounds upon which Mr. Vasquez-Ramirez could
appeal his conviction or his sentence. The record indicates that Mr. VasquezRamirez’s plea was knowing and voluntary. His sentence is supported by the
applicable law and the facts of this case.
Outcome: Accordingly, we DISMISS this appeal.