Filed: Nov. 19, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 2003 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 11-19-2003 USA v. Brown Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 02-3660 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003 Recommended Citation "USA v. Brown" (2003). 2003 Decisions. Paper 100. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003/100 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States
Summary: Opinions of the United 2003 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 11-19-2003 USA v. Brown Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 02-3660 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003 Recommended Citation "USA v. Brown" (2003). 2003 Decisions. Paper 100. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003/100 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States C..
More
Opinions of the United
2003 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
11-19-2003
USA v. Brown
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 02-3660
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Brown" (2003). 2003 Decisions. Paper 100.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003/100
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 2003 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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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: 02-3660
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
TODD BROWN
a/k/a
ZACHARY BROWN
Todd Brown,
Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Crim. No. 99-cr-00024-4)
District Court: Hon. James McGirr Kelly
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
November 6, 2003
Before: McKEE and SMITH, Circuit Judges,
and GREENBERG, Senior Circuit Judge
(Opinion Filed: November 19, 2003)
OPINION
McKEE, Circuit Judge.
Todd Brown appeals from the district court’s sentence of conviction and judgment.
However, because we find that there are no conceivable non-frivolous issues present in
the record, we will dismiss the appeal pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967).
I.
Inasmuch as we write only for the parties, it is not necessary to recite the facts of
this case. It is sufficient to note for our purposes that on August 18, 1999, a superseding
indictment was returned by a federal grand jury charging Brown with conspiracy to
commit armed bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (Count One); aiding and
abetting an armed bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(d) and 2 (Count Two);
aiding and abetting the carrying and use of a firearm during a crime of violence in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1) and 2 (Count Three); conspiracy to commit armed
bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (Count Seven); aiding and abetting an armed
bank robbery in violation of §§ 2113(d) and 2 (Count Eight); and aiding and abetting the
carrying and use of a firearm during a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§
924(c)(1) and 2.
On March 31, 1999, Brown pled guilty to all six counts of the indictment and
agreed to cooperate with the government pursuant to a written plea agreement. During
the guilty plea colloquy, the government set forth the factual basis for Brown’s guilty plea
to Counts One through Three, Seven and Nine of the superseding indictment. Brown
agreed with the government’s statement of the facts, and did not object to the Presentence
Investigation Report. Brown faced an effective sentencing guideline range of 397-421
months imprisonment. However, the district court granted the government’s motion for
2
downward departure for substantial assistance, pursuant to both 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) and
U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1.
Consequently, on September 10, 2002, Brown was sentenced to concurrent 50
month sentences of imprisonment on Counts One and Seven, and concurrent 50 month
sentences of imprisonment on Counts Two and Eight to run consecutively to the sentence
on Counts One and Seven, 50 months imprisonment on Count Three to run consecutively
to any other sentence, 50 months imprisonment on Count Nine to run consecutively to any
other sentence (for a total of 200 months); five years supervised release, restitution of
$507,100 and a $600 special assessment. Thereafter, Brown filed a timely notice of
appeal.
II.
Brown’s appointed appellate counsel has filed an Anders brief stating that he is
unable to identify any non-frivolous issue for review. An appointed appellate counsel
who “finds [a] case to be wholly frivolous, after a conscientious examination of” the case,
must so advise the court of appeal and request permission to withdraw. Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Counsel’s request must be accompanied by a
“brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.”
Id.
That is to say, the brief must identify any “issue arguably supporting the appeal even
though the appeal was wholly frivolous,” Smith v. Robbins,
528 U.S. 259, 285 (2000),
“explain why the issues are frivolous,” United States v. Marvin,
211 F.3d 778, 781 (3d
3
Cir. 2000), and show that counsel “thoroughly scoured the record in search of appealable
issues.” Id. at 780; see also United States v. Youla,
241 F.3d 296, 300 (3d Cir.2001).
Defense counsel’s Anders brief has referred us to the portions of the record that
arguably present non-frivolous issues and has identified the following issues: (1) Did the
district court have jurisdiction to accept Brown’s guilty plea as to Counts One, Two,
Three, Seven, Eight and Nine of the superseding indictment? (2) Was Brown’s guilty plea
valid in light of controlling constitutional and statutory standards? (3) Did the district
court impose a legal sentence?
However, counsel has concluded that any claim of error would be frivolous. We
agree.1 The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231, the guilty plea
clearly met the standards of Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969) and Fed.R.Crim.P.
11, and the sentence was imposed in accordance with the sentencing guidelines.
Accordingly, the plea waived all non-jurisdictional claims Brown may have had. In
addition, we note that Brown’s counsel provided a copy of his brief to Brown, who was
given time to raise any non-frivolous arguments in a pro se brief, and that Brown has not
1
Brown’s counsel has suggested that the guilty plea colloquy may have been deficient
regarding the district court’s obligation to advise the defendant about the consequences of
a violation of supervised release. We disagree. In fact, the district court’s extensive
guilty plea colloquy complied with every requirement of Fed.R.Crim.P. 11, including this
one. The district court explained the concept of supervised release to Brown, including
the fact that a violation may result in additional incarceration and also advised Brown of
the maximum terms of supervised release for each count of conviction.
4
filed such a brief.
III.
Accordingly, we will affirm the sentence of conviction and judgment.
TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT:
Please file the foregoing Opinion.
/s/ Theodore A. McKee
Circuit Judge
5
