United States v. Pryce
21-5046
| 10th Cir. | Jan 20, 2022Background:
- Search of Pryce’s home seized computers and media containing ~2,930 child pornography images; Pryce admitted downloading and distributing via file‑sharing.
- Pryce pled guilty without a plea agreement to one count of distributing and receiving child pornography under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252(a)(2), 2252(b)(1).
- The district court calculated an advisory Guidelines range of 121–151 months and sentenced Pryce to 121 months’ imprisonment and 10 years’ supervised release after considering § 3553(a) factors.
- Pryce filed a timely notice of appeal; counsel submitted an Anders brief concluding no non‑frivolous issues to raise on appeal.
- The Anders brief addressed potential challenges to the Rule 11 plea colloquy, procedural Guidelines calculation, substantive reasonableness of the sentence, and supervised‑release conditions, finding none meritorious.
- The Tenth Circuit conducted a de novo review, found no non‑frivolous issues, granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, and dismissed the appeal.
Issues:
| Issue | Pryce's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of guilty plea | Challenge Rule 11 compliance and voluntariness (plain error only) | Plea colloquy complied with Rule 11; plea was knowing, voluntary, and factually supported | No plain error; plea valid |
| Procedural reasonableness of sentence | Argue Guidelines miscalculation or procedural sentencing error (plain error review) | Guidelines were correctly calculated and court properly considered § 3553(a) factors | No plain error; Guidelines calculation and procedures correct |
| Substantive reasonableness of sentence | Argue sentence substantively unreasonable | Sentence at bottom of Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable | Presumption not rebutted; sentence substantively reasonable |
| Conditions/term of supervised release | Challenge to term or conditions of supervised release | Conditions and term are proper | No non‑frivolous basis to challenge supervised release |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (authorizes counsel to request permission to withdraw when appeal is frivolous)
- United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55 (guilty plea challenges unpreserved on appeal are reviewed for plain error)
- United States v. Leon, 476 F.3d 829 (de novo review of record when counsel files Anders brief)
- United States v. Calderon, 428 F.3d 928 (discussing Anders procedures in the Tenth Circuit)
- United States v. Muhammad, 747 F.3d 1234 (standards for voluntary and intelligent guilty plea)
- United States v. Kristl, 437 F.3d 1050 (presumption of reasonableness for within‑Guidelines sentences)
- United States v. Durham, 902 F.3d 1180 (reaffirming presumption for Guidelines sentences)
- United States v. Martinez‑Barragan, 545 F.3d 894 (plain error review for procedural sentencing challenges)