Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
11-20-2006
USA v. Wilson
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-3899
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Wilson" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 176.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/176
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 2006 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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 05-3899
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
SENECA WILSON,
Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. No. 04-cr-00292)
District Judge: Honorable Anne E. Thompson
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
November 7, 2006
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, BARRY and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges
(Filed: November 20, 2006)
OPINION OF THE COURT
ALDISERT, Circuit Judge
Seneca Wilson appeals his conviction of bank robbery and use of a firearm in
relation to a crime of violence. Counsel for Appellant has filed a motion to withdraw,
1
accompanied by a brief under Anders v. California arguing that the appeal is frivolous.
386 U.S. 738 (1967). We will grant counsel’s motion for withdrawal and will dismiss the
appeal for want of jurisdiction.
I.
Because we write only for the parties who are familiar with the facts and the
proceedings in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, we will
revisit them only briefly. In the course of two weeks in December 2003, Seneca Wilson
robbed or attempted to rob five banks in southern New Jersey. On December 31, 2003, he
also robbed a Shell Service Station and a New Jersey Turnpike Toll Plaza. Wilson’s blitz
of thievery came to an end when he was apprehended on January 2, 2004, shortly after
robbing a Commerce Bank in Old Bridge, New Jersey.
Wilson pleaded guilty to bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and use
of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i).
In exchange for Wilson’s guilty plea, the government agreed not to charge him with
additional bank robberies and the use of a firearm during those crimes. Paragraph 14 of
the plea agreement provided in part:
Seneca Wilson knows that he has, and voluntarily waives, the right to file
any appeal, any collateral attack, or any other writ or motion after
sentencing, including but not limited to an appeal under 18 U.S.C. § 3742
or a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which challenges the sentencing
court’s determination or imposition of the offense level, if the total offense
level determined by the court (prior to the application if the consecutive 60
months’ imprisonment required for Count Two) is equal to or less than 30.
2
(App. at 40.) On appeal, we have briefs from the government and from Wilson’s counsel,
who seeks withdrawal. Wilson has not filed a pro se brief.
II.
In Anders, the Supreme Court established a procedure for defense counsel to
follow when he or she believes an appeal to be frivolous. 386 U.S. at 744. Under Anders,
counsel must submit a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably
support the appeal. Id. The brief must (1) satisfy the Court that counsel has thoroughly
examined the record in search of appealable issues, United States v. Youla, 241 F.3d 296,
300 (3d Cir. 2001); (2) identify any “issue[s] arguably supporting the appeal even though
the appeal was wholly frivolous,” Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259, 285 (2000); and (3)
“explain . . . why the issues are frivolous,” United States v. Marvin, 211 F.3d 778, 780-
781 (3d Cir. 2000).
Wilson’s counsel, in his Anders brief, carefully walks us through Wilson’s plea
hearing and sentencing hearing, explaining how both complied with applicable
requirements. Not only was the sentencing beyond reproach, counsel points to Wilson’s
appellate waiver, which he argues bars this appeal. He concludes that there is no issue
arguably supporting the appeal. A copy of the brief of Appellant’s counsel was provided
to Wilson, who was given an opportunity to raise any non-frivolous arguments in a pro se
brief. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; 3d Cir. L.A.R. 109.2(a). He declined to do so. We
have reviewed counsel’s Anders brief and agree that Wilson’s appeal presents no non-
3
frivolous issues.
III.
The government maintains that we are without jurisdiction to hear Wilson’s appeal
because he signed a plea agreement waiving appellate rights. We review de novo the
validity of a guilty plea agreement containing a waiver of appellate rights. United States
v. Khattak, 273 F.3d 557, 560 (3d Cir. 2001). We will enforce a waiver of appellate rights
if defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his appellate rights, unless giving force to
the waiver would work a “miscarriage of justice.” Id. at 563. In United States v. Lockett,
we enforced an appellate waiver executed by a criminal defendant as part of his guilty
plea agreement, thus finding the defendant not entitled to appellate review. 406 F.3d 207,
212-214 (3d Cir. 2005).
As in Lockett, Wilson executed a valid waiver of the right to appeal his conviction.
We are satisfied that, in view of Wilson’s long string of bank and other robberies, the
government’s agreement to forgo prosecution of the other serious and independent
robberies was valid consideration for Wilson’s guilty plea and his agreement not to
appeal. The plea agreement did not work a miscarriage of justice. We therefore will
enforce the no appeal provision of his plea agreement.
IV.
Having examined the record and the Anders brief, we agree that Appellant was
unable to present any non-frivolous issues in this appeal, and there are no meritorious
4
issues for purposes of filing a petition for a writ of certiorari.
We will dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
5