28 U.S.C. § 1291, we agree with counsel that Defendant’s appeal is “wholly frivolous.” Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396. We consequently grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and dismiss this appeal. See id. (explaining that once we determine an appeal is “wholly frivolous” we may “grant counsel’s request to withdraw and dismiss the appeal”). I. Police discovered Defendant’s shotgun after responding to a 911 call initiated by Defendant’s ex-girlfriend, Joanna Underwood. According to the evidence presented at Defendant’s sentencing hearing, which included the testimony of two police officers who responded to Defendant’s home and a signed statement Underwood gave police, the essential facts of this case are as follows. See United States v. Scott, 529 F.3d 1290, 1298 (10th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>); see also Fed.R.Evid. 1101(d)(3). Dispatch
holding that confrontation clause protections do not extend to sentencing hearings recognizing that the federal rules of evidence do not apply to sentencing hearings holding that because the rules of evidence including the rule against hearsay do not apply to sentencing hearings the district court did not err in relying on hearsay in ordering restitution holding that disputes as to evidence admitted at a restitution hearing are meritless because the rules of evidence do not apply during sentencing proceedings holding that because restitution hearings are a part of sentencing and have nothing to do with a defendants guilt or innocence the rules of evidence do not apply