United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Lindsay Martin Sheafe, Defendant-appellant, 5 F.3d 548 (10th Cir. 1993)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT¹ 

Defendant was convicted of various firearm offenses, 18 U.S.C. 922(a) (6), (g) (1), and sentenced under the guidelines to 108 months imprisonment. Defendant seeks review of his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3742(a) and 3553(a), (b), and (c). Defendant's counsel filed an Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1978).

Between February 21, 1992 and August 6, 1992, Defendant illegally purchased thirteen firearms. In each instance, Defendant denied being a convicted felon on ATF Form 4473. Defendant was indicted on two counts of felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. 922(g) (1), 924(a) (2), and two counts of false statement in acquisition of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. 922(a) (6), 924(a) (1) (B). On October 31, 1992, Defendant attempted to escape from jail while awaiting trial. On December 14, 1992, Defendant pleaded guilty to all four counts.

The base offense level for the crimes charged in the indictment was 24. U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(a) (2). This level was increased by four for the possession of thirteen to twenty-four guns, U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(b) (1) (D), and by two for obstruction of justice for the attempted escape from custody before trial, U.S.S.G. 3C1.1, but reduced by three for acceptance of responsibility, U.S.S.G. 3E1.1, giving Defendant a base offense level of 27. With a criminal history category of IV for his prior felony convictions, Defendant's guideline sentencing range was 100-125. Because the statutorily authorized maximum sentence was 120 months, 120 months became the maximum guideline sentence. U.S.S.G. 5G1.1(a). The district court sentenced Defendant to 108 months incarceraton.

After reviewing the record, we find that the district court properly applied the sentencing guidelines, sentenced Defendant in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 3553, and did not impose the sentence in violation of the law. Although Defendant appeals because he "had been advised ..., that he had a right to appeal his sentence, [and] he wished to take advantage of all appeal rights," Defendant has failed to assert that his sentence is facially illegal, improperly calculated, or factually erroneous. See 18 U.S.C. 3742(a). Therefore, we have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal. U.S. v. Garcia, 919 F.2d 1478, 1481 (10th Cir. 1990).

DISMISSED.