United States v. Fajardo-Zamora, 664 F. App'x 728

Defendant Jesus Fajardo-Zamora pled guilty to unlawful reentry after removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
PSR assigned total offense level 21 (including a 16-level enhancement for a prior drug‑trafficking conviction) and criminal history category III.
Defendant initially qualified for a 2‑level fast‑track reduction but withdrew from the program; Guidelines range without the reduction was 46–57 months.
The district court imposed a below‑Guidelines sentence of 37 months after considering defendant’s age and criminal history.
Appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief identifying two potential issues (extent of downward variance; adequacy of sentencing explanation) and moved to withdraw; defendant did not file a response.
The Tenth Circuit conducted an independent review and granted counsel’s motion, dismissing the appeal as frivolous.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court erred by not varying downward more	Fajardo‑Zamora argued for a 24‑month sentence based on age, health, and motive for return	District court relied on criminal history and concerns about past criminal involvement to limit variance	No abuse of discretion; 37‑month below‑Guidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable and not substantively unreasonable
Whether district court plainly erred by failing to adequately explain the sentence	Arguably the court did not sufficiently articulate § 3553(a) reasoning at sentencing	Court noted age and criminal history; not required to discuss every § 3553(a) factor or use “magic words”	No plain error; explanation was adequate under controlling precedent

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedures for counsel to seek withdrawal when appeal is frivolous)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for sentencing review)
United States v. Perez‑Jiminez, 654 F.3d 1136 (10th Cir. 2011) (below‑Guidelines sentences are presumptively reasonable)
United States v. Lente, 759 F.3d 1149 (10th Cir. 2014) (standard for substantive reasonableness review)
United States v. Haley, 529 F.3d 1308 (10th Cir. 2008) (§ 3553(a) factors govern substantive reasonableness)
United States v. Calderon, 428 F.3d 928 (10th Cir. 2005) (Anders procedure explained in Tenth Circuit context)
United States v. Romero, 491 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2007) (plain error standard for unpreserved sentencing‑explanation claims)
United States v. Sanchez‑Leon, 764 F.3d 1248 (10th Cir. 2014) (court not required to articulate reasoning for each § 3553 factor)
United States v. Contreras‑Martinez, 409 F.3d 1236 (10th Cir. 2005) (no required "magic words" when explaining sentence)
United States v. Gantt, 679 F.3d 1240 (10th Cir. 2012) (no requirement to discuss each § 3553(a) factor when varying from Guidelines)