Appellate Case: 23-6092 Document: 91-1 Date Filed: 09/23/2024 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT September 23, 2024 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. No. 23-6092 (D.C. No. 5:23-CR-00160-HE-1) DEVONTE HOLSTON, (W.D. Okla.) Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________ Before HOLMES, Chief Judge, MORITZ, and CARSON, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ A jury convicted Devonte Holston of one count of indecent exposure in violation of 21 Okla. Stat. § 1021(A)(1), as assimilated by federal law pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 13(a). The district court sentenced Mr. Holston to 24 months’ imprisonment to be served consecutively to a sentence he was already serving followed by two years of supervised release. The district court ordered Mr. Holston

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

Appellate Case: 23-6092 Document: 91-1 Date Filed: 09/23/2024 Page: 2

to register as a sex offender in Oklahoma and to participate in a sex offender treatment program if so directed by his probation officer. Mr. Holston appeals.

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), Mr. Holston’s counsel submits that any appeal is wholly frivolous and moves to withdraw. Under Anders, this court “must . . . 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) (internal citation omitted). Counsel’s Anders brief discusses in candid detail the indictment return, trial (including the admission of Fed. R. Ev.

404(b) evidence), sentence, and imposition of supervised release conditions.

Although Mr. Holston received two extensions of time to do so, he did not file a response to the Anders brief.

Having conducted a full examination of the record, we conclude there are no non-frivolous issues upon which Mr. Holston has a basis for appeal. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and dismiss the appeal.

Entered for the Court

Nancy L. Moritz Circuit Judge