Filed: Feb. 07, 2008
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit February 7, 2008 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 07-3006 (D.C. No. 06-CR-20062-JWL) GERARDO MOJICA-FABIAN, a/k/a (D. Kan.) Gordo, Defendant-Appellant. ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before KELLY, McKAY, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. Defendant Gerardo Mojica-Fabian was charged by superseding indictment and convicted by a jury of one count of consp
Summary: FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit February 7, 2008 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 07-3006 (D.C. No. 06-CR-20062-JWL) GERARDO MOJICA-FABIAN, a/k/a (D. Kan.) Gordo, Defendant-Appellant. ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before KELLY, McKAY, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. Defendant Gerardo Mojica-Fabian was charged by superseding indictment and convicted by a jury of one count of conspi..
More
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
February 7, 2008
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 07-3006
(D.C. No. 06-CR-20062-JWL)
GERARDO MOJICA-FABIAN, a/k/a (D. Kan.)
Gordo,
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before KELLY, McKAY, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
Defendant Gerardo Mojica-Fabian was charged by superseding indictment
and convicted by a jury of one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with
intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and one
count of possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(viii) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. The jury found that
*
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not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,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. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value
consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Mr. Mojica-Fabian conspired to distribute or possess with intent to distribute
more than 1500 grams of methamphetamine. R. Doc. 59, at 2. The district court
adopted the presentence report in its entirety and sentenced Mr. Mojica-Fabian to
235 months’ incarceration.
On appeal, Mr. Mojica-Fabian’s counsel filed an Anders brief, stating that
he “has examined the record for issues which might arguably support an appeal
and finds . . . there are no issues presenting any basis for the vacating of the
conviction, granting a new sentencing hearing or reduction of appellant’s
sentence.” Aplt. Br. at 7. He moves to withdraw as counsel. See Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). We received no response from
Mr. Mojica-Fabian, and the government also declined to file a response. After
independently reviewing the record, we agree that Mr. Mojica-Fabian has no
legally non-frivolous issues to appeal either his conviction or his sentence. We
therefore grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and dismiss the appeal.
Background
On February 18, 2006, an Oklahoma state trooper conducting a radar sweep
on Interstate 40 stopped a Toyota Highlander SUV for speeding. R., Vol. II
at 67-68, 71, 100. The driver was Freddy Ramirez, and his girlfriend was with
him. Id. at 21, 68. In keeping with standard practice, the trooper asked
Mr. Ramirez to move to his patrol car.
Id. at 72. The trooper noted
-2-
Mr. Ramirez’s increasing nervousness and anxiety. Id. at 72-73, 75. The trooper
was also skeptical of Mr. Ramirez’s explanation that he had been traveling from
Kansas City to California and back “in a very short period of time” in order to
visit his sick aunt.
Id. at 74-75. Based on the trooper’s training that such
circumstances indicate that a person may be in possession of illegal substances,
the trooper asked Mr. Ramirez if he could search his vehicle.
Id. at 73-74, 76.
Mr. Ramirez consented, and the trooper found six cellophane-wrapped bundles in
the spare tire.
Id. at 69-70. The trooper placed Mr. Ramirez under arrest.
Id.
at 70. The contents were field-tested and later confirmed by laboratory tests to be
563.6 grams of methamphetamine.
Id. at 70-71, 172-75, 182. Mr. Ramirez
agreed to cooperate with law enforcement in conducting a controlled delivery.
Id.
at 79. The trooper turned the Highlander and its occupants over to a special agent
of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and they were transported to
Kansas City, Mr. Ramirez’s original destination.
Id. at 74, 78-80.
The next day, DEA agents recorded Mr. Ramirez while he placed two
telephone calls to Mr. Mojica-Fabian (who is nicknamed “Gordo”). Id. at 6-7, 14,
16, 141-43. A controlled delivery was set up to occur at the Latino Market in
Overland Park, Kansas, and the Highlander, Mr. Ramirez, and his girlfriend were
transported to that location.
Id. at 19. Mr. Ramirez, his girlfriend, and one
bundle of the drugs were placed in the Highlander (which was disabled), and the
occupants were kept under surveillance.
Id. at 19-21, 88-89. A maroon Plymouth
-3-
Voyager van drove up shortly after noon. Id. at 89-90. The van parked near
Mr. Ramirez’s vehicle, and two Hispanic men got out and approached the rear of
the Highlander.
Id. at 90.
Mr. Mojica-Fabian was identified as the driver of the van. Id. at 90-91.
Mr. Ramirez got out of the Highlander and gave the key to Mr. Mojica-Fabian,
who then got in the Highlander.
Id. at 91. Mr. Ramirez’s girlfriend also got out
of the Highlander, and she and Mr. Ramirez walked away.
Id. The other
Hispanic man started to leave in the van but was stopped by law enforcement.
Id.
at 92. Mr. Mojica-Fabian was also arrested and was charged as indicated above.
Id. at 92-93, 100.
Mr. Ramirez testified that he made the February 2006 trip at the direction
of Mr. Mojica-Fabian’s brother, a man known as “Pancho,” and was to be paid
$5000. Id. at 130-31, 133. He said that Mr. Mojica-Fabian brought him a
package beforehand to give to Pancho in California.
Id. at 134-35. He said that
Pancho had paid him for two other drug runs to California, in May and November
2005.
Id. at 54-55, 133, 152-53. The presentence report provided further details
of Mr. Mojica-Fabian’s involvement with Mr. Ramirez’s three trips.
Analysis
Pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision in Anders, a court-appointed
defense counsel may “request permission to withdraw [from an appeal] where
-4-
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)
(citing
Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). This process requires counsel to
submit a brief to the client and the appellate court indicating any
potential appealable issues based on the record. The client may then
choose to submit arguments to the court. The court must then
conduct a full examination of the record to determine whether
defendant’s claims are wholly frivolous. If the court concludes after
such an examination that the appeal is frivolous, it may grant
counsel’s motion to withdraw and may dismiss the appeal.
Id. (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744).
In his Anders brief, counsel indicated that this appeal would conceivably be
meritorious only if the conviction should be vacated, a new sentencing hearing
should be granted, or Mr. Mojica-Fabian’s sentence should be reduced.
Conviction
Counsel submitted the trial transcript, which we have independently
reviewed.
In evaluating whether the evidence is sufficient to support the jury’s
verdict, we review the record de novo and ask only whether, taking
the evidence-both direct and circumstantial, together with the
reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom-in the light most
favorable to the government, a reasonable jury could find
[Mr. Mojica-Fabian] guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We evaluate
the sufficiency of the evidence by considering the collective
inferences to be drawn from the evidence as a whole.
-5-
United States v. Ramirez, 479 F.3d 1229, 1249-50 (10th Cir. 2007) (quotations
and citations omitted), cert. denied,
2008 WL 114113 (U.S. Jan. 14, 2008)
(No. 07-7189).
The jury verdict is amply supported by the evidence, as summarized above.
We find no non-frivolous grounds for appeal as to Mr. Mojica-Fabian’s
conviction on either count.
Sentence
Counsel submitted all of the materials relevant to Mr. Mojica-Fabian’s
sentencing, and we have independently reviewed them. We review a criminal
sentence under an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct.
586, 597 (2007). “We will set aside [a] sentence only if it is procedurally or
substantively unreasonable in light of the statutory factors contained in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a).” United States v. Geiner,
498 F.3d 1104, 1107 (10th Cir. 2007). A
sentence falling within a properly calculated guideline range is presumptively
reasonable.
Id.
The district court determined, consistent with the presentence report, that
Mr. Mojica-Fabian’s total offense level was 38 with a criminal history of one,
“which produces under the advisory guidelines a range of 235 to 293
months . . . .” R., Vol. III at 14. The court thoroughly explained the reasons for
its decision not to reduce Mr. Mojica-Fabian’s total offense level on the ground
-6-
that he was a minor participant, as argued by his counsel, see id. at 8-12, and to
sentence appellant at the low end of the guideline range the court determined to
be applicable, see
id. at 14-21. The court acknowledged that the guidelines are
advisory, but noted in particular the harmfulness of methamphetamine and
Mr. Mojica-Fabian’s lack of contrition or acceptance of responsibility for his
actions.
Id. at 16-17. The court exercised its discretion not to depart downward
from the guideline range, concluding that its sentence of 235 months’
incarceration—
would reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the
law, and provide just punishment as set forth in 18 U.S.C. Section
3553(a) (2) (A), and the length of the sentence should afford
adequate deterrence and protect the public from further crimes of the
defendant in accordance with the provisions of 18 U.S.C. Section
3553(a) (2) (B) and (C).
R., Vol. III at 19. We find no non-frivolous grounds for appeal as to the
reasonableness of Mr. Mojica-Fabian’s sentence.
For the foregoing reasons, we GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw and
DISMISS the appeal.
Entered for the Court
Stephen H. Anderson
Circuit Judge
-7-
