FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT January 27, 2021 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. No. 19-2204 (D.C. No. 2:18-CR-03752-KG-1) PEDRO PEREZ-HERNANDEZ, (D.N.M.) Defendant - Appellant. ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. No. 19-2205 (D.C. No. 2:18-CR-04018-KG-1) PEDRO PEREZ-HERNANDEZ, (D.N.M.) Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before HOLMES, BACHARACH, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ * After examining the brief, pro se filings, and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of these consolidated appeals. 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. But it may be cited for its persuasive value. See Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a); 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A). Pedro Perez-Hernandez appeals his illegal-reentry conviction and two related sentences. Defense counsel filed an Anders brief and moved to withdraw. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967) (stating that if after “conscientious examination” of record counsel finds appeal “wholly frivolous,” then counsel may move to withdraw and contemporaneously file “brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal”). Perez-Hernandez filed three pro se responses to the Anders brief, 1 and the government declined to file a brief. We have reviewed the Anders brief and Perez-Hernandez’s pro se responses and have conducted a full examination of the record to determine whether the consolidated appeals are wholly frivolous. See United States v. Calderon, 428 F.3d 928, 930 (10th Cir. 2005). Because we conclude that they are, we dismiss the appeals and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. The government charged Perez-Hernandez with illegal reentry after removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b). During his bench trial, Perez-Hernandez asserted that he could not be convicted of illegal reentry because he has derivative citizenship through his allegedly adoptive stepfather. The district court rejected this derivative-citizenship defense, finding that Perez-Hernandez failed to present sufficient evidence to substantiate his adoption claim. The district court then found Perez-Hernandez guilty of illegal reentry. And after considering, among other things, 1 For clarity, we refer to Perez-Hernandez’s first pro se response, filed June 17, 2020, as “Aplt. Resp.”; his second pro se response, filed August 3, 2020, as “Aplt. Supp. Resp.”; and his third pro se response, filed August 27, 2020, as “Aplt. Second Supp. Resp.” 2 Perez-Hernandez’s significant criminal history, the district court sentenced him to 63 months in prison. Additionally, because Perez-Hernandez’s illegal reentry violated the conditions of his supervised release from his prior illegal-reentry conviction, the district court also imposed a consecutive eight-month sentence for that violation. Counsel identifies two possible arguments for Perez-Hernandez’s appeal: the first concerns Perez-Hernandez’s assertion that the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals