Opinions of the United
2004 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
9-30-2004
USA v. Sierra
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 03-2127
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Sierra" (2004). 2004 Decisions. Paper 317.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004/317
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 2004 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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 03-2127
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
JOSE MANUEL SIERRA
a/k/a Macho
Jose Manuel Sierra,
Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Criminal Action No. 00-cr-00626-1)
District Judge: Honorable Ronald L. Buckwalter
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
September 17, 2004
Before: ALITO, AM BRO and FISHER, Circuit Judges
(Filed : September 30, 2004)
OPINION
AM BRO, Circuit Judge
Jose Manuel Sierra pled guilty to various drug crimes as well as identification
fraud. Though Sierra timely appealed, his appellate counsel has filed an Anders brief
stating that no nonfrivolous issues exist for appeal and moved to withdraw as Sierra’s
counsel. We dismiss the appeal and grant counsel’s motion.
Factual and Procedural History
On October 4, 2000, a grand jury in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania returned
an indictment of Sierra, charging him with conspiracy to distribute cocaine, heroin, and
cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846; distribution of cocaine, heroin, and cocaine
base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); conspiracy to commit an offense against the
United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; and identification document fraud in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028.
The charges were based primarily on distributions to confidential informants of
cocaine, heroin, and cocaine base by Sierra and his co-defendant, Norma Sierra. The
distributions occurred between February and July 2000, and most occurred in a restaurant
operated by the Sierras in Allentown, Pennsylvania. During the same period, the Sierras
sold false United States identification documents to one confidential informant.
On May 6, 2002, Sierra pled guilty on all counts. Prior to accepting Sierra’s guilty
plea, the District Court conducted an extensive colloquy and ensured that Sierra
understood the consequences of the plea agreement. Sierra stated that he understood that
the charges carried mandatory sentences and that the mandatory minimum sentence would
be ten years imprisonment. The District Court found that the guilty plea was made freely
2
and rested on a factual basis. Sierra was sentenced to a total term of imprisonment of 120
months, the mandatory minimum sentence required by statute.
Discussion
An appointed attorney who “finds [a] case to be wholly frivolous, after a
conscientious examination of” the case, should so advise the Court of Appeals and
request permission to withdraw as counsel. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744
(1967). Third Circuit Local Appellate Rule 109.2(a) provides that “[w]here, upon review
of the district court record, trial counsel is persuaded that the appeal presents no issue of
even arguable merit, trial counsel may file a motion to withdraw and supporting brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).” In reviewing an Anders motion,
we must consider both “(1) whether counsel adequately fulfilled [Rule 109.2(a)’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).
Thus we inquire first whether counsel satisfied his duties under Rule 109.2(a) by
thoroughly examining the record in search of appealable issues and explaining why any
potential issues are frivolous. Id. Counsel’s brief in this case is thorough and searching.
Because Sierra has not indicated what issues he intends to appeal, counsel has
independently inquired into potential avenues for challenging the entry of a guilty plea.
Entry of a guilty plea constitutes a waiver of most claims for appellate relief. Yet
counsel directs our attention to three potentially applicable exceptions: (1) the District
3
Court lacked jurisdiction to accept Sierra’s plea; (2) his plea was invalid in light of the
relevant constitutional and statutory standards; and (3) the sentence imposed by the
District Court was illegal. United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563 (1989). After careful
examination of each issue, counsel concludes that no non-frivolous issues exist.
We agree. The District Court exercised jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231,
which confers on the district courts original, exclusive jurisdiction “of all offenses against
the laws of the United States.” The Court was careful to ensure that Sierra’s waiver of his
constitutional rights was knowing and voluntary. He engaged Sierra in a lengthy
colloquy. He asked Sierra on multiple occasions whether he understood the implications
of his plea, and he repeated his instructions whenever Sierra showed the hint of
confusion. Counsel also notes that Sierra has not moved to withdraw his plea. Finally,
the District Court imposed the statutory minimum sentence of 120 months. There were
no mitigating circumstances that would have permitted a downward departure.
Because counsel has submitted an adequate Anders brief, “we confine our scrutiny
to those portions of the record identified by [the Anders brief] . . . [and] those issues
raised in Appellant’s pro se brief.” Youla, 241 F.3d at 301. Sierra received a copy of
counsel’s brief and was afforded an opportunity to respond. He has not, however, done
so.
We conclude, upon “a full examination of all the proceedings,” Anders, 386 U.S.
at 744, “that the attorney has provided the client with a diligent and thorough search of
4
the record for any arguable claim.” McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wis., 486 U.S. 429,
442 (1988). We agree with counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous, and we therefore
affirm the judgment on the merits and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
5