United States vs. Wesaw, No. 07-8024 (10th Cir. 2007)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit October 18, 2007 UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court __________________________ U N ITED STA TES O F A M ER ICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 07-8024 (D.Ct. No. 06-CR-189 ABJ) (D . W yo.) v. TIM OTHY W ESAW , Defendant-Appellant. ____________________________ OR D ER AND JUDGM ENT * Before TA CH A, Chief Circuit Judge, and BARRETT and BROR BY, Senior Circuit Judges. After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Appellant Timothy W esaw pled guilty to one count of possession of * This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel.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 Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. material containing an image of child pornography transported in interstate commerce by any means, including a computer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B) and (b)(2). The district court sentenced M r. W esaw to the low end of the advisory United States Sentencing Guidelines ( Guidelines or U.S.S.G. ) range of forty-one to fifty-one months imprisonment, as well as five years supervised release. W hile M r. W esaw appeals his conviction and sentence, his attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw as counsel. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). For the reasons set forth hereafter, w e grant counsel s motion to withdraw and dismiss this appeal. I. Background Pursuant to a plea agreement, M r. W esaw pled guilty to a one-count indictment for possessing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B) and (b)(2). The district court held a plea hearing, during which it thoroughly and comprehensively questioned M r. W esaw about his guilty plea. In response, M r. W esaw explicitly confirmed he had read the plea agreement, discussed it w ith counsel, and signed it voluntarily and of his own free will. H e also stated he understood the offense for which he was charged, the maximum sentence and other possible sentencing ramifications related to the offense, 1 and 1 Because the offense occurred prior to enactment of the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003 (continued...) -2- the rights he was giving up by pleading guilty, including his right to a speedy public jury trial. He further admitted he was guilty of possessing child pornography by downloading images to his computer by means of interstate telephone lines. After the district court accepted M r. W esaw s guilty plea, the probation officer prepared a presentence report calculating his sentence under the applicable Guidelines. The presentence report set his base offense level at seventeen, pursuant to the applicable 2003 version of U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(a), and increased his base level: 1) two levels pursuant to § 2G2.2(b)(1) because the child pornography involved prepubescent minors under age twelve; 2) four levels under § 2G2.2(b)(3) given the images depicted sadistic or masochistic conduct; and 3) two levels under § 2G2.2(b)(5) because his offense involved the use of a computer. It also reduced the offense level by three levels for acceptance of responsibility, resulting in a total offense level of twenty-two. This, together with a criminal history category of I, resulted in an advisory sentencing range of fortyone to fifty-one months imprisonment. 1 (...continued) (PROTECT Act), Pub. L. No. 108-21, 117 Stat. 650 (codified in scattered sections of 18 and 42 U.S.C.), its provisions did not apply to M r. W esaw, resulting in a statutory maximum term of only five years imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A (2003). -3- Although M r. W esaw filed miscellaneous objections to some of the factual findings in the presentence report, those objections w ere withdrawn prior to sentencing. However, M r. W esaw did reserve the right to raise issues related to receiving a reasonable sentence under the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). During the sentencing hearing, discussion occurred concerning M r. W esaw s mental health, including prior alcohol abuse, depression, and treatment for bipolar disorder. In addition, three family members testified on M r. W esaw s behalf. Following their testimony, M r. W esaw s counsel conceded she had found no issue for a departure but asked the district court to consider a variance under the § 3553(a) factors in conjunction with: 1) M r. W esaw s exemplary conduct during his home confinement in which he voluntarily placed restrictions on himself; 2) his alcoholism and prior treatment for bipolar disorder; 3) the fact he raised his two sons on his own; and 4) the fact his last criminal offense occurred seven years prior to the instant offense. M r. W esaw then testified on his own behalf, articulating his remorse for his actions and asking for supervised release rather than a term of imprisonment. In response, the government requested a sentence within the advisory Guidelines range of forty-one to fifty-one months imprisonment, noting the seriousness of the offense, given M r. W esaw downloaded over twenty movie files and eighty-seven still or JPEG images -4- involving child pornography, and pointing out his need for vocational training and mental health and drug counseling. In sentencing M r. W esaw, the district court explicitly stated it considered all the factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), together with the circumstances presented, including M r. W esaw s alcoholism; pornographic addiction tendencies, including the many, many hours it took to download the materials found on his computer; his honesty, acceptance of responsibility, admitted shame, and selfimposed sequestration after the instant offense; his difficult family circumstances growing up and in raising his children on his own; the discrimination he experienced as a Native American; and his need for mental health treatment. Based on these considerations, the district court determined a sentence at the low end of the advisory sentencing range was appropriate and reasonable and sentenced M r. W esaw to forty-one months imprisonment and five years supervised release. After M r. W esaw filed a timely notice of appeal, his appointed counsel filed an Anders appeal brief, explaining a review of the record reveals no nonfrivolous issues exist to support an appeal in this case and moving for an order permitting withdrawal as counsel. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. In support, counsel suggests no irregularities occurred in the guilty plea or sentencing and -5- points out M r. W esaw was fully advised and understood his rights and the ramifications in pleading guilty, and the district court, after considering the § 3553(a) factors and properly calculating the advisory Guidelines range, sentenced him at the low end of that range to forty-one months imprisonment. Pursuant to Anders, this court gave M r. W esaw an opportunity to respond to his counsel s Anders brief. Id. However, M r. W esaw failed to file a response. II. Discussion As required by Anders, we have conducted a full examination of the record before us. See 386 U.S. at 744. Our independent review of the plea transcript supports beyond any doubt our conclusion M r. W esaw knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered his plea of guilty. Thus, based on the record before us, we cannot say M r. W esaw s guilty plea was involuntary for the purpose of challenging his conviction. As to his sentence of forty-one months imprisonment and five years supervised release, we review for reasonableness the sentence s length, as guided by the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United States v. Kristl, 437 F.3d 1050, 1053 (10th Cir. 2006) (per curiam). Having made such a review, we find no nonfrivolous basis for challenging the sentence imposed. The district court in this case explicitly considered the factors in § 3553(a), and a presumption of reasonableness attaches to a sentence, like here, which is w ithin the correctly-calculated Guidelines range, which M r. W esaw has not rebutted. -6- See id. at 1053-55. III. Conclusion For these reasons, no meritorious appellate issue exists. Accordingly, w e G R A N T counsel s motion to withdraw and DISM ISS M r. W esaw s appeal. Entered by the C ourt: W ADE BRO RBY United States Circuit Judge -7-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.