UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.	No. 99-2050
ROGELIO SALDANA-HERNANDEZ aka Luis Hernandez-Garcia,

Defendant-Appellant.	(D.C. No. CR-98-173-MV)

(D.N.M.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, BALDOCK, and HENRY, Circuit Judges.**

Defendant Rogelio Saldana-Hernandez was charged in a one-count indictment with illegal reentry of a deported alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326(a)(1), (2) & (b)(2). Defendant pled guilty and the district court sentenced him to 77 months imprisonment. Defendant appeals claiming the district court erred by (1) using prior convictions to enhance Defendant's base offense level and criminal history category under the sentencing guidelines; and (2) failing to consider Defendant's collateral attack on those prior convictions at sentencing. Counsel for Defendant has filed an Anders brief and requested to withdraw for the reason that Defendant's appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

The arguments Defendant raises in his response to counsel's Anders brief are foreclosed by prior authority. We have previously held that the use of prior convictions to enhance a defendant's base offense level and criminal history category under the sentencing guidelines in itself does not violate the Constitution. See, e.g., United States v. Martinez-Flores, 1998 WL 826837 at *1 (10th Cir. 1998) (unpublished). We have also held that with the sole exception of convictions obtained in violation of the right to counsel, a defendant in a federal sentencing proceeding has no right to collaterally attack the validity of previous convictions used to enhance his sentence. See, e.g., United States v. Simpson, 94 F.3d 1373, 1382-83 (10th Cir. 1996).

Finding no meritorious issues for appeal, we ALLOW defense counsel's motion to withdraw and AFFIRM the district court's judgment.

Entered for the Court,

Bobby R. Baldock

Circuit Judge