United States v. Jones , 176 F. App'x 322 ( 2006 )

Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
4-20-2006
USA v. Jones
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-2653
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Jones" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 1238.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/1238
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 2006 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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 05-2653
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
QUINCY L. JONES
a/k/a/ Q,
Quincy L. Jones,
Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Criminal Action No. 04-cr-00109-3)
District Judge: Honorable Thomas M. Hardiman
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
April 20, 2006
Before: SLOVITER and AMBRO, Circuit Judges,
and DuBOIS,* District Judge
(Opinion filed: April 20, 2006)
OPINION
*Honorable Jan E. DuBois, Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
AMBRO, Circuit Judge
Quincy Jones pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute cocaine in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(ii), and was sentenced to a 78-
month term of incarceration. Jones’ counsel filed an Anders motion to withdraw as
counsel, asserting that all potential grounds for appeal are frivolous. For the reasons set
forth below, we grant that motion and affirm the judgment of the District Court.
I.
Under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), if counsel “finds [a] case to be
wholly frivolous, after a conscientious examination” of the potential grounds for appeal,
s/he should “advise the court and request permission to withdraw.” Id. at 744. This
request must be accompanied by “a brief referring to anything in the record that might
arguably support the appeal,” id., “explain[ing] to the court why the issues are frivolous,”
United States v. Marvin, 211 F.3d 778, 781 (3d Cir. 2000), and demonstrating that s/he
has “thoroughly scoured the record in search of appealable issues,” id. at 780. A copy of
counsel’s brief must be furnished to the appellant, who must be given time to raise
nonfrivolous arguments in a pro se brief. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Third Circuit LAR
109.2(a) (2000).
We “confine our scrutiny to those portions of the record identified by an adequate
Anders brief . . . [and] those issues raised in Appellant’s pro se brief.” United States v.
Youla, 241 F.3d 296, 301 (3d Cir. 2001). We do not “comb the record . . . for possible
nonfrivolous issues that both the lawyer and his client may have overlooked,” as “[our]
2
duty is merely to determine whether counsel is correct in believing those grounds [raised
are] frivolous.” United States v. Wagner, 103 F.3d 551, 552-53 (7th Cir. 1996). We
grant counsel’s Anders motion to withdraw if we believe “that the attorney has provided
the client with a diligent and thorough search of the record for any arguable claim,”
McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 U.S. 429, 442 (1988), and if we conclude
“that the appeal lacks any basis in law or fact,” id. at 438 n.10.
II.
Our review of the record confirms counsel’s assessment that there are no
nonfrivolous issues for appeal. In response to his presentence report, Jones argued that
two of his prior state court convictions were related to the offense conduct at issue here,
and thus should be excluded from his criminal history calculation. Jones had been
convicted of delivery of a controlled substance in 1996 and possession of a controlled
substance in 1998. His offense here, however, occurred in May 2001. Clearly, conduct
that occurred in 1996 and 1998 predates a May 2001 offense behavior, and is properly
considered prior criminal conduct for the purpose of determining Jones’ criminal history
category.
*****
Because there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal, Jones’ judgment of conviction
and sentence is hereby affirmed, and counsel will be granted leave to withdraw.
3