|UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,|
|JOSE DE JESUS ROMERO-ACOSTA,|
On appeal, Romero-Acosta's counsel filed an Anders(1) brief after concluding that there was no meritorious issue on appeal. We have independently reviewed the record, and agree. Romero-Acosta's plea agreement and sentencing transcript support beyond any doubt the conclusion that he knowingly and voluntarily entered into a plea of guilty with a statutory minimum sentence of five years.
Finding that his plea agreement was knowingly and voluntarily made and that his sentence within the statutorily-required range was reasonable, we find no merit in Romero-Acosta's appeal. We hereby DENY this appeal. We also GRANT Romero-Acosta's counsel's motion to withdraw from the case.
Entered for the Court,
Timothy M. Tymkovich
*. This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
2. After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge 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); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
1. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (authorizing counsel to request permission to withdraw where counsel conscientiously examines a case and determines that an appeal would be wholly frivolous).