|UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
MARTHA GUADALUPE CHAVEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Defendants directed their respective defense counsel to file notices of appeal, and counsel timely complied. Mr. Chavez's notice of appeal does not state what is being appealed other than "the validity of the sentence imposed." Presumably, this refers to the district court's refusal to grant defense counsel's request for a downward departure in addition to the 50% departure it granted. Mrs. Chavez's notice of appeal states only that it is appealing "the judgments rendered."
The Defendants' counsel have jointly filed a brief under the authority of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Appellate counsel who believes an appeal to be "wholly frivolous, after a conscientious examination," may file a brief with the court requesting permission to withdraw, but informing the court of "anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal." Id. at 744. The defendant is then given a chance to "raise any points that he chooses"; and the court, "after a full examination of all the proceedings, . . . decide[s] whether the case is wholly frivolous." Id.
Defendants have not filed any response to counsels' brief, despite several letters from the court advising them of their right to do so. Additionally, the United States has filed no brief.
We have conducted our own review of the record and agree that an appeal in this case would be wholly frivolous. Accordingly, we GRANT counsels' request to withdraw and DISMISS the appeal.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Harris L Hartz
*.After examining the briefs and 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); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,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. 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.