United States v. Rodriquez ( 2003 )

Opinions of the United
2003 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
7-25-2003
USA v. Rodriquez
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 02-3999
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Rodriquez" (2003). 2003 Decisions. Paper 342.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003/342
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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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: 02-3999
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
JOSE RODRIQUEZ,
a/k/a JOSE MATE,
a/k/a FRANCISCO LUNA-TAVERES,
a/k/a FRANCISCO LUNA,
a/k/a FRANCISCO LUNA-TAVAREZ,
a/k/a EUSEBIO DeJESUS
Jose Rodriquez,
Appellant
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
D.C. Criminal No. 01-cr-00323-14
District Judge: Mary A. McLaughlin
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
July 15, 2003
Before: McKee, Barry & Rosenn, Circuit Judges
(Filed: July 24, 2003 )
OPINION OF THE COURT
McKee, Circuit Judge.
Jose Rodriguez entered a guilty plea to one count of a multi-count indictment in
which he was charged with possessing with intent to distribute, and aiding and abetting
the possession of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school. Following sentencing, he filed
this appeal. A guilty plea waives virtually all claims of appellate relief except the trial
court’s jurisdiction to accept the plea, and claims that the plea is invalid or the sentence is
illegal. U.S. v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563 (1989). Counsel for Rodriguez has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) in which he claims that he has
undertaken a conscientious review of the record and that there are no nonfrivolous issues
for appeal. Inasmuch as we agree that there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal, we will
affirm the judgment of the district court and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
TO THE COURT:
Please file the foregoing opinion.
By the Court
/s/ Theodore A. McKee
Circuit Judge
2
3