FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit

March 30, 2007

Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court

		UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 		
		Plaintiff-Appellee,	No. 06-4040	
v.	(D.C. No. 2:05-CR-530-TS)	
ARTHUR ARCHULETA, a/k/a Arthur Archuletta, a/k/a Art Archutetta,	(D. Utah)	
		Defendant-Appellant.		

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before BRISCOE, McKAY, and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges.

	After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in 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.
	Defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and was sentenced to thirty-three months’ imprisonment based on a four-level increase under United States Sentencing Guideline § 2K2.1(b)(5).  This case comes to us on defense counsel’s motion to withdraw as counsel.  In compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), he has filed a brief in support of that motion.  That brief states that the district court’s application of § 2K2.1(b)(5) poses the only arguable issue for appeal.
	Defendant was charged in Utah state court with aggravated assault with a dangerous weapon
 following a domestic dispute in which evidence indicates that Defendant pointed a loaded, 9-mm weapon at his girlfriend and her seven-year-old son.  The charge was dropped, however, following apparent mismanagement of the prosecution.  The district court nevertheless relied upon this information, contained in the pre-sentence report (“PSR”) filed in conjunction with Defendant’s federal § 922(g)(1) crime, in deciding to apply the sentencing enhancement.  At sentencing, defense counsel objected to the inclusion of and reliance upon this information in the PSR because the state charge was never prosecuted and no facts relating to this charge were admitted by Defendant in his guilty plea.  The district court denied the objection:
Based upon defendant’s own post-Miranda admission, combined with the evidence presented by the government in this case, including photographs, a 911 audiotape and videotape of interviews, the Court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant directly used one of four weapons in his possession to engage in behavior amounting to aggravated assault . . . .

(Sentencing Tr. at 12.)
	In his Anders brief, defense counsel asserts that the district court’s reliance on facts alleged in the PSR relating to the aggravated assault charge raises no nonfrivolous appealable issue.  In support of that position, he cites United States v. Wolfe, 435 F.3d 1289 (10th Cir. 2006), which reaffirmed, post-Booker, our pre-Booker decision that unobjected-to facts contained in a PSR constitute admissions of fact.  Wolfe does not apply, however, to the instant situation because defense counsel objected at sentencing to the use of this evidence, pointing out that the state charge was never prosecuted and that Defendant denied the incident ever occurred.
	Nevertheless, in United States v. Magallanez, 408 F.3d 672, 684‑85 (10th Cir. 2005), we held that even after Booker, facts relevant to sentencing need only be proved by a preponderance of the evidence, so long as the Sentencing Guidelines are treated in an advisory fashion.  The district court correctly treated the Sentencing Guidelines as advisory, and the court’s statement correctly and concisely conveys the evidence upon which it relied in finding that a preponderance of the evidence warranted the § 2K2.1(b)(5) enhancement.
	Accordingly, after reviewing the Anders brief and the record on appeal, including the PSR and sentencing transcript, we GRANT counsel leave to withdraw and AFFIRM the judgment and sentence.
							Entered for the Court

							Monroe G. McKay
							Circuit Judge