United States v. Martinez-Deleon ( 2000 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MAR 23 2000
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
No. 99-6330
v.
(D.C. No. 99-CR-31-M)
(Western District of Oklahoma)
DOMINGO MARTINEZ-DELEON,
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BALDOCK, HENRY and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
Domingo Martinez-DeLeon, an inmate at the Federal Correction Institution
at El Reno, Oklahoma, appearing pro se, appeals the sentence he received
following his guilty plea to knowingly possessing a prohibited object (cocaine) as
an inmate, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1791(a)(2), and challenges the grand jury
indictment. Martinez-DeLeon’s attorney believes that his appeal is wholly
frivolous. He therefore has filed both a motion to withdraw as attorney of record
*
The case is unanimously ordered submitted without oral argument
pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This order and
judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case,
res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of
orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the
terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
and a corresponding Anders brief outlining Martinez-DeLeon’s apparent grounds
for appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Anders requires
that such a brief refer to “anything in the record that might arguably support the
appeal.” Id. Consistent with this requirement, counsel informs us appellant
wishes to allege the district court abused its discretion in failing to depart
downward to the extent warranted by the mitigating factor present in this case.
Counsel furnished Martinez-DeLeon with a copy of the brief, and Martinez-
DeLeon responded, see id., raising one additional claim for relief and requesting
the appointment of counsel. Based on our own independent review of the record,
we conclude Martinez-DeLeon’s claims are wholly without merit. Exercising
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742, we grant counsel’s
motion to withdraw, deny Martinez-DeLeon’s request for the appointment of
counsel, and affirm his conviction and sentence.
We “cannot exercise jurisdiction to review a sentencing court’s refusal to
depart from the Guidelines, either upward or downward, unless the court refused
to depart because it interpreted the Guidelines to deprive it of the authority to do
so.” United States v. Fortier, 180 F.3d 1217, 1231 (10th Cir. 1999) (citations
omitted). “We also lack jurisdiction where the defendant complains that the
district court’s grant of a downward departure is too small.” See United States v.
Bromberg, 933 F.2d 895, 896 (10th Cir. 1991); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3742. That is
-2-
the case here: The district court exercised its discretion to depart, but declined to
depart to the extent requested by Martinez-DeLeon. 1 Because we lack jurisdiction
to review that decision, this claim is wholly frivolous.
In Martinez-DeLeon’s response to counsel’s Anders brief, he raises one
additional issue. He challenges his indictment, alleging that Susan J. Micio, a
special agent with the FBI, misled the grand jury in order to obtain an indictment
and that she was unfamiliar with his case. In support of these assertions,
Martinez-DeLeon points to alleged inconsistencies between the prison incident
report and Micio’s testimony. After thorough review of both the incident report
and Micio’s testimony, we find no such inconsistencies. Micio testified that
eighteen balloons containing cocaine and heroin were recovered from Martinez-
DeLeon between January 4 and 5, 1997, at which time Martinez-DeLeon asked
what was going to happen to him because they contained cocaine. Based on
Martinez-DeLeon’s statement, the incident report reveals that prior to testing the
substances contained in the balloons, the alleged drug in the balloons was
cocaine. That same report states that after testing, the balloons contained both
cocaine and heroin. Thus, Martinez-DeLeon’s allegation that “nowhere” in the
report is heroin mentioned is incorrect. (Appellant’s 12/28/99 Letter at 1.) In
1
The district court reached this result by reducing by two levels Martinez-
DeLeon’s total offense level, which reduced his imprisonment range from 24–30
months to 18–24 months.
-3-
addition, Martinez-DeLeon has failed to support his conclusory allegations that
Micio was unfamiliar with his case and misled the grand jury as to the facts
underlying the indictment. “[C]onclusory allegations without supporting factual
averments are insufficient to state a claim on which relief can be based.” Hall v.
Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). Because we conclude that both
of Martinez-DeLeon’s claims lack merit, we also deny his request for the
appointment of counsel.
We AFFIRM the conviction and sentence imposed by the district court,
GRANT counsel’s request to withdraw, and DENY Martinez-DeLeon’s request
for the appointment of counsel.
The mandate shall issue forthwith.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Carlos F. Lucero
Circuit Judge
-4-