United States v. Murguia-Marquez, 687 F. App'x 736

Murguia-Marquez, a noncitizen with multiple prior removals, was arrested after a 2015 traffic stop and charged with unlawful reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
The government moved in limine to preclude collateral attacks on the validity of his prior removals; the district court set a response deadline and ordered any motion to dismiss based on removals be filed by that date.
Murguia-Marquez did not respond or file a motion to dismiss; the district court granted the government’s motion and barred collateral attack at trial.
He pleaded guilty and received a within-Guidelines 37-month sentence; defense counsel filed an Anders brief seeking withdrawal and noting Murguia-Marquez’s contention that one prior removal was not judicially ordered.
The Tenth Circuit reviewed the Anders brief, the record, and found no non-frivolous appellate issues, dismissing the appeal and granting counsel’s withdrawal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Murguia-Marquez can attack the validity of prior removals after pleading guilty	He contends one prior removal was not ordered by a judge and seeks to challenge its validity	Government argues collateral attack was precluded and the guilty plea waived non-jurisdictional challenges	Waived by guilty plea; district court properly precluded collateral attack; no non-frivolous challenge exists
Whether reliance on prior removals in sentencing was procedural error (clear factual error)	Murguia-Marquez implicitly argues prior removals were invalid, which could undermine facts used in sentencing	Government and record support use of repeated reentry history as sentencing factor	No clear error; invalidity of removals would not necessarily undermine finding of repeated illegal reentries
Whether the within-Guidelines 37-month sentence is substantively unreasonable	He implies sentence is excessive given alleged invalid prior removal	Government defends sentence as within Guidelines and appropriate under § 3553(a) factors	Sentence presumptively reasonable; appellant did not rebut presumption; substantive challenge is frivolous
Whether counsel’s Anders motion to withdraw is appropriate	N/A (Anders motion by defense counsel)	N/A	Court granted withdrawal after full review finding appeal wholly frivolous

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedures for court review when counsel seeks to withdraw on grounds appeal is frivolous)
United States v. Calderon, 428 F.3d 928 (10th Cir. 2005) (appellate panel must conduct full examination when counsel files Anders brief)
United States v. Dwyer, 245 F.3d 1168 (10th Cir. 2001) (guilty plea waives non-jurisdictional challenges)
United States v. Lucero, 747 F.3d 1242 (10th Cir. 2014) (procedural review required before assessing substantive reasonableness)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard for reasonableness review of sentences)
United States v. Worku, 800 F.3d 1195 (10th Cir. 2015) (district court commits procedural error if sentence based on clearly erroneous facts)
United States v. Earle, 488 F.3d 537 (1st Cir. 2007) (lawfulness of prior deportation is not an element of illegal reentry offense)
United States v. Alapizco-Valenzuela, 546 F.3d 1208 (10th Cir. 2008) (within-Guidelines sentence receives a presumption of substantive reasonableness)
United States v. Friedman, 554 F.3d 1301 (10th Cir. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion standard applies to substantive reasonableness review)
United States v. Sells, 541 F.3d 1227 (10th Cir. 2008) (deference owed to district court in sentencing decisions)