United States v. Hunter

Opinions of the United 2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 11-4-2008 USA v. Hunter Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 08-1566 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008 Recommended Citation "USA v. Hunter" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 267. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/267 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 2008 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 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 08-1566 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. KENNETH HUNTER, Appellant On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Criminal No. 1-03-cr-00263-001) District Judge: The Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) October 27, 2008 Before: McKEE, NYGAARD, and MICHEL,* Circuit Judges. (Filed: November 4, 2008) OPINION OF THE COURT NYGAARD, Circuit Judge. *The Honorable Paul R. Michel, Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation. This is an appeal from a re-sentence imposed after a remand pursuant to United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Appellant, Kenneth Hunter, pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine. The District Court entered judgment and sentenced Appellant to a prison sentence of time served, with three years of supervised release. Because we write exclusively for the parties who are familiar with the facts and the proceedings below, we will not revisit them here. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Hunter’s appointed counsel has examined the record, concluded that there are no non-frivolous issues for review, and has requested permission to withdraw. We, too, have thoroughly examined the record and can find no non-frivolous issues to be raised in this appeal. Hence, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. 2