Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
4-5-2005
USA v. Rivera
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 03-3097
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Rivera" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 1394.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/1394
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 2005 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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 03-3097
____________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;
v.
DANIEL RIVERA,
Appellant
____________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 02-cr-00553)
District Judge: Honorable Petrese B. Tucker
____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
October 25, 2004
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, FISHER and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: April 5, 2005)
____________
OPINION OF THE COURT
____________
FISHER, Circuit Judge.
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), appointed counsel for the
Appellant Daniel Rivera originally filed a motion to withdraw from representation and an
Anders brief, concluding, inter alia, that the sentence imposed on Appellant by the
District Court was legal. The appeal was held C.A.V. pending United States v. Booker,
543 U.S. —, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), and Appellant’s counsel subsequently informed us by
letter dated February 22, 2005, that Appellant now challenges his sentence under Booker.
We interpret this letter to withdraw counsel’s earlier filed motion to withdraw from
representation, and accordingly do not address whether the Anders brief previously
submitted met the Anders standard.1
Having determined that the sentencing issues Appellant raises are best determined
by the District Court in the first instance, we will vacate the sentence and remand for
resentencing in accordance with Booker.
1
We note, however, some dissatisfaction with the fact that the Anders brief failed
to even acknowledge the U.S.S.G § 3B1.2 issue, which was clearly important at
sentencing and which formed the basis for the informal brief submitted by Appellant after
the Anders brief was filed.
2