UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
___________________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RYAN GOODALL,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 21-3112
(D.C. No. 2:19-CR-20070-SRB-4)
(D. Kan.)
_________________________________________
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).
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
April 21, 2022
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 21-3112 Document: 010110673959 Date Filed: 04/21/2022 Page: 1
-- 1 of 3 --
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
Appellate Case: 21-3112 Document: 010110673959 Date Filed: 04/21/2022 Page: 2
-- 2 of 3 --
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
Appellate Case: 21-3112 Document: 010110673959 Date Filed: 04/21/2022 Page: 3
-- 3 of 3 --