NOT PRECEDENTIAL
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT
OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 09-3397
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
ALBERTO LUIS BOTA,
Appellant
On Appeal From the United States
District Court
For the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Action No. 1-09-cr-00041-001)
District Judge: Hon. Sylvia H. Rambo
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
May 28, 2010
BEFORE: McKEE, Chef Judge, RENDELL
and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges
(Opinion Filed : June 3, 2010)
OPINION OF THE COURT
STAPLETON, Circuit Judge:
Alberto Bota appeals his conviction, following a guilty plea, of conspiracy to
distribute and possess with intent to distribute powder cocaine, crack cocaine, and
marijuana. His attorney has moved to withdraw his representation under Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). We will grant the
motion to withdraw and will affirm the District Court’s judgment.
This Court’s rules provide that “[w]here, upon review of the district court record,
trial counsel is persuaded that the appeal presents no issue of even arguable merit, counsel
may file a motion to withdraw and supporting brief pursuant to Anders.” 3d Cir. LAR
109.2(a). If we concur with trial counsel’s assessment, we “will grant [the] Anders
motion, and dispose of the appeal without appointing new counsel.” Id. Accordingly, our
“inquiry when counsel submits an Anders brief is thus twofold . . .: (1) whether counsel
adequately fulfilled the rule’s requirements; and (2) whether an independent review of the
record presents any nonfrivolous issues.” United States v. Youla, 241 F.3d 296, 300 (3d
Cir. 2001).
Our review of the record has convinced us that trial counsel’s Anders brief is
adequate and that there are no nonfrivolous grounds on which to challenge the judgment
2
of conviction. Accordingly, we will grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and will affirm
the judgment of the District Court. In addition, we certify that the issues presented in this
appeal lack legal merit and thus that counsel is not required to file a petition for writ of
certiorari with the Supreme Court. 3d Cir. LAR 109.2(b).
3