Opinions of the United
2003 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
2-24-2003
USA v. Shalata
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket 01-4064
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Shalata" (2003). 2003 Decisions. Paper 792.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003/792
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2003 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 01-4064
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
JOSEPH SHALATA,
Appellant
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
(Dist. Court No. 3:CR-01-033)
District Court Judge: Munley, J.
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
February 10, 2003
Before: ALITO and McKEE, Circuit Judges, and SCHWARZER, Senior District Judge*
(Opinion Filed: February 24, 2003)
OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM:
*
The Honorable William W Schwarzer, Senior District Judge for the Northern
District of California, sitting by designation.
Defendant Joseph Shalata pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute in excess of 100
grams of heroin which resulted in the death of another person, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§846. The District Court imposed sentence and entered judgment, and this appeal followed.
The defendant contends (1) that the District Court should have lessened his federal
sentence by according him full-time credit for a related state conviction and sentence
already served and (2) that his guilty plea was not entered voluntarily, knowingly, and
intelligently. In accordance with the defendant’s instructions, defendant’s counsel submitted
a brief presenting these claims to this Court. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), however, defendant’s counsel submitted a brief certifying that each of the issues
raised by the defendant is without merit. We agree.
After reviewing counsel’s Anders brief and engaging in an independent review
of the record, see United States v. Youla, 241 F.3d 296, 299-300 (3d Cir. 2001), we find no
non-frivolous issues meriting appeal. Accordingly, pursuant to Anders and Third Circuit
Local Appellate Rule 109.2(b), we affirm the judgment of the District Court and grant
defense counsel’s motion to withdraw.