United States v. Goodall
This text of United States v. Goodall (United States v. Goodall) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Appellate Case: 21-3112 Document: 010110673959 Date Filed: 04/21/2022 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT April 21, 2022 ___________________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 21-3112 (D.C. No. 2:19-CR-20070-SRB-4) RYAN GOODALL, (D. Kan.) Defendant - Appellant.
_________________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT * __________________________________________
Before BACHARACH, BALDOCK, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges. ___________________________________________
Mr. Ryan Goodall was convicted after a guilty plea on drug- and gun-
charges (conspiring to possess at least 50 grams of methamphetamine with
intent to distribute, distributing at least 50 grams of methamphetamine, and
possessing a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking) and sentenced to
* Oral argument would not help, so we decide the appeal based on the record and the parties’ briefs. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).
Our order and judgment does not constitute binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. But the order and judgment may be cited for its persuasive value if otherwise appropriate. See Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a); 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A). Appellate Case: 21-3112 Document: 010110673959 Date Filed: 04/21/2022 Page: 2
124 months’ imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C. § 2; 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),
(b)(1)(A)(viii), 846, 924(c). He appeals.
Mr. Goodall’s counsel seeks leave to withdraw, invoking Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and stating that any appellate challenges
would be frivolous. We agree with defense counsel that all potential
grounds for appeal would be frivolous. So we grant the motion to withdraw
and dismiss the appeal.
1. Anders v. California
Under Anders v. California, attorneys may seek leave to withdraw
from an appeal when they conscientiously examine a case and determine
that an appeal would be frivolous. Id. at 744. To obtain leave to withdraw,
an attorney must
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 [c]ourt 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.
United States v. Calderon, 428 F.3d 928, 930 (10th Cir. 2005).
Defense counsel filed a brief, stating that any appellate challenges
would be frivolous; and Mr. Goodall declined to file a pro se brief. So we
rely on (1) defense counsel’s brief and (2) the record on appeal. We engage
in de novo review of the record to determine whether any appellate
2 Appellate Case: 21-3112 Document: 010110673959 Date Filed: 04/21/2022 Page: 3
challenge would be frivolous. United States v. Kurtz, 819 F.3d 1230, 1233
(10th Cir. 2016).
2. Conviction
Our review of the record suggests that the district court complied
with the requirements of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 and
ensured that Mr. Goodall’s guilty plea was informed, free, and voluntary.
3. Sentence
No reasonable basis exists to challenge the district court’s guideline
calculation, and Mr. Goodall’s sentence dipped below the floor of the
guideline range. We thus presume that the sentence is substantively
reasonable. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347 (2007); United States
v. Kristl, 437 F.3d 1050, 1055 (10th Cir. 2006) (per curiam). Though this
presumption is rebuttable, Mr. Goodall bears the burden of demonstrating
the sentence is unreasonable. Kristl, 437 F.3d at 1055. Mr. Goodall has not
tried to meet that burden.
4. Conclusion
Any appellate grounds would be frivolous, so we grant counsel’s
motion to withdraw and dismiss the appeal.
Entered for the Court
Robert E. Bacharach Circuit Judge
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
United States v. Goodall, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-goodall-ca10-2022.