Filed: Jun. 25, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 2009 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 6-25-2009 USA v. Rogelio Guevara-Cari Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 08-4033 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009 Recommended Citation "USA v. Rogelio Guevara-Cari" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 1127. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/1127 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the
Summary: Opinions of the United 2009 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 6-25-2009 USA v. Rogelio Guevara-Cari Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 08-4033 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009 Recommended Citation "USA v. Rogelio Guevara-Cari" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 1127. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/1127 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the ..
More
Opinions of the United
2009 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
6-25-2009
USA v. Rogelio Guevara-Cari
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 08-4033
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Rogelio Guevara-Cari" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 1127.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/1127
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 2009 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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 08-4033
____________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
ROGELIO GUEVARA-CARILLO,
Appellant
____________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 07-cr-00493)
District Judge: Honorable A. Richard Caputo
____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
June 11, 2009
Before: McKEE, HARDIMAN and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: June 25, 2009)
____________
OPINION OF THE COURT
____________
HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge.
Rogelio Guevara-Carillo pleaded guilty to one count of possessing contraband – a
homemade knife or “shank” – while incarcerated at FCI Schuylkill, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1791. The District Court imposed a within-Guidelines sentence of 28 months
imprisonment and Guevara-Carillo filed this timely appeal, over which we have
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a).
Counsel for Guevara-Carillo has moved to withdraw pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Guevara-Carillo declined to submit a pro se brief in
response thereto. When counsel files a motion pursuant to Anders, we determine
whether: (1) counsel adequately fulfilled the Anders requirements, and (2) an independent
review of the record presents any nonfrivolous issues. United States v. Marvin,
211 F.3d
778, 780 (3d Cir. 2000).
To meet the first prong, appointed counsel must examine the record, conclude that
there are no nonfrivolous issues for review, and request permission to withdraw. United
States v. Youla, 241 F.3d 296, 300 (3d Cir. 2001). Counsel must accompany a motion to
withdraw with a “brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the
appeal.”
Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. Counsel need not raise and reject every possible claim,
but must, at a minimum, meet the “conscientious examination” standard set forth in
Anders.
Youla, 241 F.3d at 300.
Guevara-Carillo’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw along with an Anders brief,
asserting that he “made a thorough and conscientious review of the record” revealing that
no appealable issues exist because the District Court had jurisdiction, the guilty plea was
knowing and voluntary, and the sentence was reasonable.
2
The District Court’s jurisdiction is beyond question. Guevara-Carillo was charged
under a federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1791. Because district courts have subject matter
jurisdiction over all offenses against the laws of the United States under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3231, there is no viable issue as to the District Court’s jurisdiction in this case.
The validity of a guilty plea turns on whether the plea was “knowing, voluntary
and intelligent.” United States v. Tidwell, 521 F.3d 236, 251 (3d Cir. 2008). A defendant
challenging the voluntariness of his guilty plea must establish that the trial court failed to
comply with the mandates of Boykin v. Alabama,
395 U.S. 238 (1969), and Federal Rule
of Criminal Procedure 11(b). See United States v. Schweitzer,
454 F.3d 197, 202-03 (3d
Cir. 2006). The District Court and the Government informed Guevara-Carillo through his
translator of the charges against him, the underlying conduct that the Government would
prove at trial, the rights he would be waiving by entering a guilty plea, and the
ramifications of pleading guilty to the offense. Guevara-Carillo was also asked a number
of questions – including whether he was satisfied with his court-appointed counsel –
which he answered in the affirmative through his translator. Guevara-Carillo agreed that
he had committed the acts outlined in the indictment, and that his plea was voluntary and
not the product of coercion or promises of leniency. Based on this record, we find no
appealable issue of merit as to the validity or voluntariness of Guevara-Carillo’s guilty
plea.
3
Finally, the reasonableness of the sentence is also beyond dispute. We review a
district court’s sentence for reasonableness, evaluating both its procedural and substantive
underpinnings under a deferential abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 128
S. Ct. 586, 594 (2007). In imposing a sentence, the District Court must: (1) correctly
determine, as a matter of fact, and as a matter of law, the proper Guidelines sentence; (2)
correctly determine the applicability of any departure motions; and (3) exercise its
discretion to determine the applicability of any of the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors. See United States v. Gunter,
462 F.3d 237, 247 (3d Cir. 2006).
The 27 to 33 month Guidelines range calculated by the Probation Office was not
disputed. Thus, the District Court properly followed the first step of Gunter.
The second step was inapplicable because no departures were requested. The third
step required the Court to make an individualized assessment and consider all of the
§ 3553(a) factors in determining the final sentence. In imposing the 28-month sentence,
the District Court reviewed the § 3553(a) factors extensively, clearly indicated its
consideration of those factors, and imposed its sentence in light of those factors. In
explaining its judgment, the District Court explicitly noted that: (1) possession of a
weapon in prison, regardless of motive, is a serious offense; (2) Guevara-Carillo’s
criminal history was not overstated by the Guidelines calculation; (3) the sentence both
promoted respect for the law and deterred others contemplating the same activity; and (4)
the sentence was less than a recently-imposed sentence on a similarly-situated inmate. It
4
then imposed a sentence of 28 month imprisonment, which was one month above the
bottom of the Guidelines range. Accordingly, we find no appealable issue of merit as to
Guevara-Carillo’s sentence.
Having exhausted the possible avenues for meritorious appeal, we find that
counsel’s discussion of the reasons why no appealable issues exist meets the requirements
of the first prong of Anders.
As for the second prong of Anders, we have independently reviewed the record
and we agree with counsel’s comprehensive analysis as to why no appealable issue exists.
The District Court’s analysis of Guevara-Carillo’s prior crimes, his circumstances, and
the goals of sentencing was more than adequate.
Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court and, in a separate
order, grant counsel’s motion to withdraw pursuant to Anders.
5
