-
Opinions of the United 2004 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 11-8-2004 USA v. Jones Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 02-4598 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004 Recommended Citation "USA v. Jones" (2004). 2004 Decisions. Paper 144. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004/144 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 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 02-4598 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. DONALD JONES, a/k/a HAFIZ SHABUR Donald Jones, Appellant APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA D.C. Crim. No. 02-cr-00244-1 District Judge: The Honorable Berle M. Schiller Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) September 30, 2004 Before: ROTH, BARRY, and CHERTOFF, Circuit Judges (Opinion Filed: November 8, 2004) OPINION BARRY, Circuit Judge Donald Jones was charged with being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm in violation of
18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e). He pled guilty, and was sentenced to 180 months imprisonment and five years of supervised release. Jones, pro se, appealed the judgment of sentence, and trial counsel was appointed to represent Jones on appeal. After reviewing the record, counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738(1967), requesting permission to withdraw because he was unable to discern any non-frivolous issues for review. Jones was subsequently provided notice of his counsel’s desire to withdraw. He has not filed a pro se brief. The District Court had jurisdiction under
18 U.S.C. § 3231, and we have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291and
18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). We will grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and will affirm the judgment of sentence. I. When counsel submits an Anders brief, we must perform a two part inquiry. First, we must determine whether counsel has satisfied L.A.R. 109.2(a). United States v. Youla,
241 F.3d 296, 300 (3d Cir. 2001). To discharge his duty pursuant to L.A.R. 109.2(a), counsel’s brief must “satisfy the court that counsel has thoroughly examined the record in search of appealable issues” and “explain why the issues are frivolous.”
Id.Although counsel is not required to raise and reject every possible claim, he still must conscientiously examine the record.
Id.Second, we must be satisfied that our independent review of the record does not reveal any non-frivolous issues.
Id.If the Anders brief appears adequate on its face, “the 2 proper course ‘is for the appellate court to be guided in reviewing the record by the Anders brief itself.’”
Id. at 301(quoting United States v. Wagner,
103 F.3d 551, 553 (7th Cir. 1996)). We conclude that the Anders brief is adequate and, thus, it guides our independent review of the record. See Youla,
241 F.3d at 301. II. As required by Anders, Jones’ counsel has highlighted portions of the record that could putatively support an appeal. Counsel has identified two possible issues: (1) the District Court’s refusal to continue the sentencing hearing in order to clarify Jones’ criminal record; and (2) the District Court’s decision to apply
18 U.S.C. § 924(e). After reviewing the record, we agree with counsel that these issues are frivolous. In his Anders brief, counsel explained that, prior to the sentencing hearing, he had moved for a continuance in order to determine whether Jones had two or three felony drug convictions. At the sentencing hearing, however, it became apparent that a continuance was not necessary because counsel had been provided with certified copies of Jones’ convictions, counsel and Jones had reviewed those records and stipulated to them, and the Assistant U.S. Attorney answered to counsel’s satisfaction any questions concerning those records. Any need to delay the sentencing was obviated, and the District Court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the request for a continuance that counsel had previously made. Second, the District Court correctly applied
18 U.S.C. § 924(e). While Jones 3 claimed that he only recalled two prior felony drug convictions, certified copies of three such convictions were produced. For the reasons stated above, we will grant counsel’s request to withdraw and will affirm the judgment of sentence. 4
Document Info
Docket Number: 02-4598
Citation Numbers: 114 F. App'x 492
Judges: Roth, Barry, Chertoff
Filed Date: 11/8/2004
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/5/2024