United States v. Veneziale ( 2006 )

Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
7-27-2006
USA v. Veneziale
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-2454
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Veneziale" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 691.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/691
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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 05-2454
__________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
CHRISTOPHER VENEZIALE,
Appellant
__________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Criminal No. 04-cr-00604)
District Judge: Honorable R. Barclay Surrick
__________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
on July 13, 2006
Before: SLOVITER, McKEE, and RENDELL , Circuit Judges
(Filed: July 27, 2006)
__________
OPINION OF THE COURT
__________
RENDELL, Circuit Judge.
On January 26, 2005, Christopher Veneziale pled guilty in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to three counts of carjacking, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2119, and one count of possession of cocaine base (“crack”), in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844. Veneziale was sentenced to a total of 120 months
incarceration, five years supervised release, and $225.00 restitution. Veneziale appeals his
conviction and sentence. Veneziale’s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), claiming that the appeal has no meritorious
issues and is wholly frivolous. Veneziale did not file a pro se brief. We agree with
Veneziale’s counsel. In addition, we conclude that Veneziale waived his right to appeal.
Accordingly, we will dismiss the appeal.
As set forth in Anders, Third Circuit Local Appellate Rule 109.2(a) allows counsel
to submit a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief if counsel “is persuaded that the
appeal presents no issue of even arguable merit.” We must then determine “(1) whether
counsel adequately fulfilled the rule’s requirements; and (2) whether an independent
review of the record presents any nonfrivolous issues.” United States v. Youla, 241 F.3d
296, 300 (3d Cir. 2001); United States v. Marvin, 211 F.3d 778, 780-81 (3d Cir. 2000)
(citing United States v. Tabb, 125 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 1997)).
The purpose of Counsel’s Anders brief is “(1) to satisfy the court that counsel has
thoroughly examined the record in search of appealable issues, and (2) to explain why the
issues are frivolous.” Youla, 241 F.3d at 300. After reviewing the entire record, we are
persuaded that counsel’s brief correctly identifies and rejects potential appealable issues.
Counsel argues that the appeal is wholly frivolous because (1) Veneziale entered his
guilty plea knowingly and voluntarily and in conformity with the law and (2) Veneziale’s
sentence was legal. We agree.
2
As to the first issue, before a court can accept a plea, it must establish that the plea
is voluntary and that there is a factual basis for the plea. United States v. Tannis, 942 F.2d
196, 197 (3d Cir. 1991) (citing McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 464-67 (1969)).
The record clearly establishes that, in accordance with Rule 11, the District Court ensured
Veneziale read and understood every paragraph of his plea agreement and advised
Veneziale of the rights he would be waiving by pleading guilty and the penalties provided
by law. Veneziale acknowledged that his plea was knowing and voluntary and admitted to
all the facts outlined by the Government. See App. at 8a-28a. Second, the record also
indicates that Veneziale knew he faced a maximum sentence of 77 years incarceration, 5
years supervised release and a million dollar fine. App. at 15a. The 2004 United States
Sentencing Commission Guideline recommends imprisonment for 108 to 135 months for
Veneziale’s offenses. Veneziale was sentenced to 120 months. Although under United
States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), the guidelines are only advisory, we are satisfied
that the district court gave an adequate explanation for the sentence and that the sentence
is reasonable. Furthermore, Veneziale signed a plea agreement that waived his right to
appeal or collaterally attack his conviction, sentence, or any other matter relating to his
prosecution.
For the foregoing reasons, we will dismiss the appeal and grant defense counsel’s
motion to withdraw.
_____________________
3