Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
12-13-2007
USA v. Anthony
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-3783
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Anthony" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 74.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/74
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 2007 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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 05-3783
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
MARI ANTHONY,
Appellant
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Criminal No. 01-cr-00336-04)
District Judge: Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
December 13, 2007
Before: RENDELL, GREENBERG, and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: December 13, 2007)
OPINION OF THE COURT
VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judge.
Appellant appeals his July 29, 2005 sentence on the grounds that his guilty plea
was not “knowing and voluntary” given his counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness. Because
this Court agrees with its prior decision on this same issue in a previous appeal, we affirm
the sentence.
I.
Because we write solely for the parties, we will only address those facts necessary
to our opinion. In addition, because the facts of the crime are largely irrelevant at this
stage of the proceedings, only a brief procedural history is needed.
On September 11, 2003, Appellant Anthony was sentenced to 360 months
imprisonment. Appendix of the Appellant (“App.”) at 50. Anthony appealed this sentence
to this Court, arguing, among other things, that his guilty plea was not voluntary due to
the alleged ineffectiveness of his attorney. This Court denied his appeal in its entirety,
and in doing so held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying his
motion to withdraw the guilty plea. United States v. Anthony, 112 Fed. Appx. 810, 813
(3d Cir. 2004).
Anthony petitioned for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, and
the writ was granted. Anthony v. United States, 543 U.S. 1137 (2005). The case was
remanded to this Court, and this Court vacated Anthony’s sentence and remanded to the
District Court for resentencing in accordance with United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220
(2005). This Court specifically limited the issue on remand to a determination of
Anthony’s sentence in light of the new advisory nature of the Guidelines under Booker.
App. at 54-55.
At re-sentencing on July 29, 2005, the District Court sentenced Anthony to a term
of 240 months, in light of Booker. App. at 72. Anthony appealed from that sentence. Id.
2
at 87.
II.
The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania had
subject matter jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231. This Court has
appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
III.
In this appeal, Anthony only raises one issue: Whether his guilty plea was
“knowing and voluntary” given his counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness in advising him of
the nature and effect of his plea. Appellant’s Br. at 2. This Court previously addressed
this same exact issue in Anthony’s prior appeal. See Anthony, 112 Fed. Appx. at 812-13.
Because we agree with the reasoning and conclusion of our prior decision,1 this Court
affirms the judgment of the District Court.
IV.
For the above reason, the judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.
1
The government maintains that the appeal should be quashed because this Court’s
prior holding concerning the voluntariness of Appellant’s guilty plea is the “law of the
case.” Government’s Br. at 9. However, because this Court agrees with the reasoning
and conclusion of our prior decision, it is unnecessary to reach this issue.
3