United States v. Lopez Falcone , 86 F. App'x 525 ( 2004 )

Opinions of the United
2004 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
2-2-2004
USA v. Lopez Falcone
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 03-1247
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Lopez Falcone" (2004). 2004 Decisions. Paper 1035.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004/1035
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 2004 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NOT PRECEDENTIAL
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 03-1247
___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
vs.
JUAN ANTONIO LOPEZ FALCONE,
Appellant
___________
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
(D.C. Criminal No. 00-cr-00190-4)
District Judge: The Honorable Katharine S. Hayden
___________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) on January 26, 2004.
BEFORE: NYGAARD, FUENTES, and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges.
(Filed : February 2, 2004)
___________
OPINION OF THE COURT
___________
NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.
Appellant, Juan Antonio Lopez-Falcone, pleaded guilty to filing fraudulent
claims to Medicare, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Lopez-Falcone was sentenced to
three years probation, and was ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $46,872.00.
A notice of appeal was timely filed and we appointed James C. Patton, Esq.
to represent the Appellant. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), asking this court to allow him to withdraw because he is
unable to identify any non-frivolous issues for our review. Lopez-Falcone did not file a
pro se brief.
The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We will grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and
affirm the District Court’s judgment of sentence.
As is required under Anders, Lopez-Falcone’s counsel directed us to
portions of the record that might arguably support an appeal. Counsel pointed to one
possible issue, namely, whether the District Court conducted a sufficiently thorough plea
hearing.
The plea hearing conducted by the District Court complied with Rule 11 of
the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and was, therefore, sufficiently thorough. See
United States v. Tannis, 942 F.2d 196 (3d Cir. 1991). The record reflects that the District
Court took every opportunity to make certain that Lopez-Falcone understood the charges
against him, and the rights he was forfeiting by pleading guilty. The District Court also
informed Lopez-Falcone of the maximum penalties he would face as a result of his guilty
plea.
Moreover, the record in this matter reflects the District Court’s efforts to
ensure that there was an adequate factual basis for Lopez-Falcone’s guilty plea by
personally questioning him regarding the facts of the case. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(f).
Furthermore, our independent review of the record satisfies us that Lopez-
Falcone’s sentence was legally imposed. The District Court correctly determined the
range under the Sentencing Guidelines and stated, in detail, the reasons for imposing its
sentence.
In conclusion, because Lopez-Falcone’s plea proceeding was proper and his
sentence legal, we will GRANT counsel’s request to withdraw. Inasmuch as we find that
the issues raised in counsel’s brief are without merit, we will AFFIRM the judgment of
sentence entered by the District Court.
_________________________
TO THE CLERK:
Please file the foregoing opinion.
/s/ Richard L. Nygaard
Circuit Judge