FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS July 22, 2020 Christopher M. Wolpert TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. No. 18-3190 (D.C. No. 2:17-CM-80076-JAR-TJJ-1) JORGE CARRILLO-HERNANDEZ, (D. Kan.) Defendant - Appellant. ________________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. No. 18-3192 (D.C. No. 2:17-CR-20024-JAR-1) JORGE CARRILLO-HERNANDEZ, (D. Kan.) Defendant - Appellant. ORDER AND JUDGMENT * * After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See F ED . R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2); 10 TH C IR . 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and Tenth Circuit Rule 32.1. Before HOLMES, MURPHY, and CARSON, Circuit Judges. This matter comes before us on an Anders brief. Counsel for Jorge Carrillo-Hernandez filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), requesting leave to withdraw as counsel. The brief identified four possible arguments that Mr. Carrillo-Hernandez might pursue on appeal: (1) his conviction is invalid because his guilty plea was involuntary, (2) his sentence for his conviction for an immigration-related offense is procedurally and substantively unreasonable under the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“Guidelines” or “U.S.S.G.”) and 18 U.S.C. § 3553, (3) his supervised-release violation is invalid because it was based on his purportedly invalid guilty plea, and (4) his sentence stemming from the revocation of his supervised-release term is procedurally and substantively unreasonable. After considering the Anders brief—as well as doing an independent examination of the entire record—we conclude that there are no non-frivolous grounds for appeal. We therefore grant the motion to withdraw and dismiss the appeal. I 1 Mr. Carrillo-Hernandez, a citizen of Mexico, has spent much of his life illegally in the United States. And, since 2003, he has been convicted of several crimes and deported four times. He was convicted on July 24, 2003 of aggravated -2- battery and subsequently deported to Mexico on September 26, 2003. He was then arrested on March 27, 2006 for a probation violation and served more than twenty-eight months in prison. On November 20, 2007, he was convicted of illegal reentry after deportation for an aggravated felony and was again deported on August 7, 2009. Then, on March 3, 2011, he was arrested for a supervised- release violation. Here, again, he served a term of imprisonment and was deported—for the third time—on February 3, 2012. Sometime after this third deportation in 2012, Mr. Carrillo-Hernandez illegally reentered the United States. After his discovery and arrest, he was charged and convicted of an illegal-reentry offense in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas and sentenced to a term of sixty months’ imprisonment and ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals