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Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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