NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
__________
No. 11-1559
__________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
DAGOBERTO ENRIQUE ESTRELLA
a/k/a EL TIO
a/k/a TONY
DAGOBERTO ESTRELLA, Appellant
__________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Criminal No. 2-08-cr-00656-001 )
District Judge: The Honorable Susan D. Wigenton
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
January 10, 2012
BEFORE: FUENTES, JORDAN, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges
(Filed: February 28, 2012 )
__________
OPINION OF THE COURT
__________
NYGAARD, Circuit Judge
Dagoberto Enrique Estrella appeals the judgment of sentence imposed by the
District Court following his plea of guilty pursuant to a plea agreement. His counsel has
moved to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Estrella
declined to submit a pro se brief. We will grant counsel’s motion and affirm the
judgment of the District Court.
I.
Inasmuch as we write for the parties, we provide only a brief recitation of the facts
of this case and its procedural history. Estrella pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy
to distribute, and possession with intent to distribute one kilogram or more, of a mixture
or substance containing heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and § 841(b)(1)(A).
The District Court found Estrella’s total offense level to be 29. This gave him an
advisory Guidelines range of between 87 and 108 months. His offense, however, carried
a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years, thereby locking his Guidelines range in at
120-months.
The District Court determined that the “safety valve” provision, 18 U.S.C. §
3553(f)(1)–(5), applied. Estrella was sentenced to 108-months imprisonment, 12-months
below the mandatory minimum sentence he would have otherwise received. Estrella
filed a timely notice of appeal.
II.
We exercise plenary review over an Anders motion. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75, 82–83 & n.6 (1988). Under Anders, when counsel files a motion to withdraw, we
must determine first, “whether counsel adequately fulfilled [Third Circuit Local
2
Appellate Rule 109.2(a) ]’s requirements,” and second, “whether an independent review
of the record presents any non-frivolous issues.” United States v. Youla, 241 F.3d 296,
300 (3d Cir. 2011).
To satisfy the first requirement, appointed counsel must file a motion to withdraw
and support it with a brief that “satisfies the court that counsel has thoroughly examined
the record in search of appealable issues, and ... explain[s] why the issues are frivolous.”
Id. at 300. Counsel must “refer [ ] to anything in the record that might arguably support
the appeal,” Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, but “need not raise and reject every possible claim.”
Youla, 241 F.3d at 300. “[A]t a minimum, he or she must meet the “conscientious
examination” standard set forth in Anders.” Id.
Here, we are satisfied that Estrella’s counsel, William J. Hunt, Esquire, has
examined the record for appealable issues and has explained why none have merit. The
District Court conducted a thorough and extensive colloquy with Estrella. The record
reveals Estrella’s acknowledgement that he was not under the influence of drugs or
alcohol, that he was satisfied with his attorney, and that he had discussed his case with
counsel. Estrella further indicated that he understood the charges against him and what
rights he was waiving by pleading guilty.
Moreover, Estrella’s sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable. The
District Court followed the three-step process we endorsed in United States v. Gunter,
462 F.3d 237, 247 (3d Cir. 2006), and gave “rational and meaningful consideration [to]
the factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)” as we required in United States v. Grier,
475 F.3d 556, 571 (3d Cir. 2007) (en banc).
3
III.
We conclude that counsel has met the requirements of Anders, and our own
independent review of the record reveals no nonfrivolous grounds for appeal. Therefore,
we will affirm the District Court’s judgment of sentence and grant counsel’s motion to
withdraw. Counsel is also relieved of any obligation to file a petition for a writ of
certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. See THIRD CIRCUIT L.A.R. 109(2)(b).
4