Case Explained: United States v. Trejo-Mendoza

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Filed: 2026-06-11 Docket: 4:24-CR-00002-GKF-1) The Tenth Circuit granted appointed defense counsel’s motion to withdraw and dismissed the defendant’s appeal as meritless. The court determined that no nonfrivolous basis for the appeal existed after conducting an independent review of the entire record, consistent with the standard established in *Anders v. California*. The court applied 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) to assess its jurisdiction over the defendant’s challenge to the denial of a downward departure based on time served in state custody under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 cmt. n. 7. The court held that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to review the district court’s discretionary denial of such a motion, as the district court clearly understood and exercised its authority but declined to depart based on the unrelated nature of the state offenses compared to the federal reentry charge. Regarding substantive reasonableness, the court applied the presumption of reasonableness that attends sentences within the advisory guidelines range. It concluded the 18-month sentence fell within the range of rationally available choices supported by the facts and law, specifically noting the district court’s rationale that state time for unrelated offenses should not be applied to a federal conviction. The practical consequence is that the defendant’s appeal is dismissed, and the district court’s judgment imposing an 18-month prison sentence stands. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.