United States v. Shannon Hamilton ( 2022 )

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
__________
No. 21-2950
__________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
SHANNON HAMILTON,
Appellant
__________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Criminal Action No. 3-10-cr-00038-001)
District Judge: Honorable Malachy E. Mannion
__________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
on July 6, 2022
Before: SHWARTZ, KRAUSE, and ROTH, Circuit Judges
(Filed: August 11, 2022)
__________
OPINION*
__________
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does
not constitute binding precedent.
KRAUSE, Circuit Judge.
Shannon Hamilton pleaded guilty to violating the terms of his supervised release and
was sentenced to ten months’ imprisonment. Because there are no nonfrivolous issues to
raise on appeal, we will grant his counsel’s motion to withdraw pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and dismiss his appeal.
I. Discussion1
Under Anders, we first examine counsel’s brief to determine if counsel has
“adequately fulfilled” the requirements of Third Circuit Local Appellate Rule 109.2(a) by
“thoroughly examin[ing] the record in search of appealable issues” and “explain[ing]
why the issues are frivolous.” United States v. Youla, 241 F.3d 296, 300 (3d Cir. 2001).
Here, counsel’s brief thoroughly “explored all possible issues for appeal,” including the
District Court’s jurisdiction, due process, Hamilton’s guilty plea, and the legality and
reasonableness of his sentence, and so satisfies the “conscientious examination” required
by Anders and our local rule. United States v. Marvin, 211 F.3d 778, 779, 781 (3d Cir.
2000) (quoting Anders, 386 U.S. at 744).
We next ask “whether an independent review of the record presents any
nonfrivolous issues.” Youla, 241 F.3d at 300. We are satisfied that none exists. The
District Court properly exercised jurisdiction over Hamilton’s criminal case arising from
his conduct under 18 U.S.C. § 3231 and was authorized to revoke Hamilton’s supervised
1
The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231, and we have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a).
release under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). Venue was appropriate because Hamilton was
supervised, and the underlying violations were committed, in the Middle District of
Pennsylvania. The District Court also complied with the due process requirements of
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1 for revocation hearings, as Hamilton had notice
of the alleged violation (a Petition for Warrant); the revocation hearing was held within a
reasonable time of the filing of the Petition (72 days); and Hamilton was represented by
counsel and had an opportunity to present evidence and speak on his own behalf at the
hearing. Cf. United States v. Barnhart, 980 F.2d 219, 222 (3d Cir. 1992).
There is also no nonfrivolous appealable issue as to Hamilton’s guilty plea, which
was “counseled and voluntary.” United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563, 569 (1989).
Counsel was present at the revocation hearing, and Hamilton confirmed that he was free
from the influence of drugs and understood the proceedings before he pleaded guilty.
Nor is there any nonfrivolous claim that Hamilton’s sentence was either procedurally or
substantively unreasonable, as the District Court considered the sentencing factors set out
in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) before imposing a sentence within the Sentencing Guidelines
range. See United States v. Handerhan, 739 F.3d 114, 124 (3d Cir. 2014).
II. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we will grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the
judgment of the District Court.
3