Filed: Nov. 15, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 11-15-2005 USA v. Luciano Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 02-2920 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005 Recommended Citation "USA v. Luciano" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 230. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/230 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United Sta
Summary: Opinions of the United 2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 11-15-2005 USA v. Luciano Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 02-2920 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005 Recommended Citation "USA v. Luciano" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 230. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/230 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United Stat..
More
Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
11-15-2005
USA v. Luciano
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 02-2920
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Luciano" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 230.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/230
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 2005 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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 02-2920
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
ROSALI LUCIANO,
Appellant
____________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Criminal No. 01-cr-00305)
District Judge: Honorable J. Curtis Joyner
____________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
October 21, 2005
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, VAN ANTWERPEN and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: November 15, 2005)
OPINION OF THE COURT
ALDISERT, Circuit Judge
Counsel for Appellant Rosali Luciano (“Luciano”) has filed a motion to withdraw
from this case and has submitted a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738
(1967), stating that no nonfrivolous issues exist for appeal. Because Luciano has not
requested re-sentencing under United States v. Booker, --- U.S. ---,
125 S. Ct. 738, 160 L.
Ed. 2d 621 (2005), we will affirm the judgment of conviction and sentence and grant
Counsel’s motion to withdraw.
I.
Because we write only for the parties, who are familiar with the facts, procedural
history and contentions presented, we will not recite them except as necessary to the
discussion.
On October 3, 2001, Luciano pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute
more than 100 grams of heroin in a protected zone, 18 U.S.C. § 860. On July 1, 2002, she
was sentenced pursuant to the Sentencing Guidelines to a term of imprisonment of 90
months followed by eight years of supervised release. The District Court did not depart
from the applicable Guidelines range.
Thereafter, Luciano filed a pro se notice of appeal. On February 14, 2002,
Luciano’s counsel filed this Anders brief and a motion to withdraw. Luciano was sent a
copy of both the motion and the brief and was given the opportunity to respond pro se.
She has not filed a response. By order dated March 30, 2005, this Court also afforded
Luciano an opportunity to challenge her sentence under Booker in a separate letter to the
Court. No such letter has been filed with this Court.
II.
2
When analyzing Anders briefs, we ask two questions: “(1) whether counsel
adequately fulfilled the rule’s requirements; and (2) whether an independent review of the
record presents any nonfrivolous issues.” United States v. Youla,
241 F.3d 296, 300 (3d
Cir. 2001). An attorney must demonstrate both that he has thoroughly examined the
record for appealable issues and that any raisable issues are frivolous.
Id. In making this
showing, “[c]ounsel need not raise and reject every possible claim.”
Id. Counsel needs
only to satisfy the “conscientious examination” standard set forth by the Supreme Court in
Anders.
Id.
Here, Counsel has referred this Court to the portions of the record that arguably
present non-frivolous issues and has addressed (1) whether the District Court had
jurisdiction to accept Luciano’s guilty plea, (2) whether Luciano’s guilty plea was valid,
and (3) whether the District Court imposed a legal sentence. Counsel concluded, and the
Government agrees, that there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal.
Upon review, we agree with the Government that Counsel has conducted a
conscientious examination of the issues and that no nonfrivolous issues exist with respect
to either the District Court’s jurisdiction or the validity of Luciano’s guilty plea. We do,
however, conclude that a nonfrivolous issue exists with respect to sentencing.
Counsel’s Anders brief advises this Court as follows:
The defendant was sentenced on July 22, 2002 [sic] prior to the Supreme
Court’s decision in United States v. Booker and United States v. FanFan [sic],
543 U.S. ____ (2005). These decisions have not been applied retroactively as
of yet. However, neither of these decisions, or the decision in Blakely v.
3
Washington, 542 U.S. ____ (2004) would aid the defendant. In the case at bar,
the defendant’s sentence was below the statutory maximum, and indeed, below
the mandatory sentence had an 851 notice been filed. There were no findings
by the Court that would have affected her sentence that were set forth
specifically in the plea agreement. Thus, it is clear that her sentence was
lawful.
Counsel’s brief was filed on February 14, 2004, two months before this Court’s
decision in United States v. Davis,
407 F.3d 162 (3d Cir. 2005). In Davis, this Court
adopted a general policy of vacating sentences entered pursuant to pre-Booker law. See
id. at 165. We noted that “[w]e would be usurping the discretionary power granted to the
district courts by Booker if we were to assume that the district court would have given
[defendant] the same sentence post-Booker.”
Id. (citing United States v. Oliver,
397 F.3d
369, 380 n.3 (6th Cir. 2005)) (modifications in original). Accordingly, Counsel’s brief is
incorrect that no nonfrivolous issues exist with respect to sentencing.
This policy, however, only applies when a defendant affirmatively requests re-
sentencing under Booker. See
id. at 166 (“Appellants have been directed to state whether
they wish to challenge their sentences under Booker. For those who do not, we consider
the appeal on the merits.”). This Court will not impose re-sentencing, which could result
in a greater sentence, on a defendant who does not request it. Here, Luciano has not
requested a remand in accordance with our Court policy, and, accordingly, we will not
remand this case to the District Court for re-sentencing. We will therefore grant
Counsel’s motion to withdraw.
III.
4
We have considered all of the arguments raised by the parties and conclude that no
further discussion is necessary. We will affirm the judgment of conviction and sentence.
The motion to withdraw will be granted.
5