Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
1-9-2008
USA v. Villegas-Rodriguez
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-3400
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Villegas-Rodriguez" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 1781.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/1781
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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 06-3400
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
ERICK VILLEGAS-RODRIGUEZ,
Appellant
_____________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Criminal No. 05-cr-00202
District Judge: Honorable Paul S. Diamond
____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
on January 8, 2008
____________
Before: FISHER, HARDIMAN AND ALDISERT, Circuit Judges
(Filed January 9, 2008)
OPINION
ALDISERT, Circuit Judge
Before us is an appellate brief filed by counsel for Appellant pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1986), and a motion to withdraw as counsel. Under Anders,
defense counsel must submit a brief referring to anything in the record that might
arguably support an appeal. Id. at 744. An Anders 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 “issues 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, 781 (3d Cir. 2000). After notification of counsel’s filing of the
Anders brief, Appellant did not file a pro se brief.
In the Anders brief, counsel identified a possible appealable issue in the sentencing
of Appellant to 10 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release for a
second violation of a previously imposed term of supervised release. Nonetheless,
counsel deems an appeal of this issue to be frivolous.
In reviewing a sentence for a violation of supervised release, this Court will apply
the same reasonableness analysis which is applicable to the review of any custodial
sentence. United States v. Bungar, 478 F.3d 540, 542 (3d Cir. 2007). We conclude that
this second sentence imposed for violating supervised release met the standard of
reasonableness set forth in United States v. Cooper, 437 F.3d 324 (3d Cir. 2006). After
acknowledging that the guideline range was advisory and not mandatory, the District
Court rejected the Government’s suggestion of a sentence above the guidelines and
imposed a sentence of ten months imprisonment. The sentence imposed was within the
2
advisory sentencing guideline of four to ten months.
We are satisfied that defense counsel’s motion to withdraw follows “a full
examination of all of the proceedings,” Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, “that the attorney has
provided the client with a diligent and thorough search of the record for any arguable
claim that might support the client’s appeal,” McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin,
486 U.S. 429, 442 (1988), and that the appeal is wholly frivolous as it “lacks any basis in
law or fact,” id. at 438 n.10. Therefore, the Anders brief is accepted, and counsel is not
required to file a petition for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States.
The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.
3