United States v. Kevin Sirman

Opinions of the United
2009 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
2-11-2009
USA v. Kevin Sirman
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 08-3050
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Kevin Sirman" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 1877.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/1877
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 2009 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NOT PRECEDENTIAL
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT
OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 08-3050
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
KEVIN B. SIRMAN,
Appellant
On Appeal From the United States
District Court
For the District of Delaware
(D.C. Crim. Action No. 1-07-cr-00142-001)
District Judge: Hon. Sue L. Robinson
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
February 2, 2009
BEFORE: McKEE and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges,
and IRENAS,* District Judge
(Filed: February 11, 2009)
*Hon. Joseph E. Irenas, Senior United States District Judge for the District of New
Jersey, sitting by designation.
OPINION OF THE COURT
STAPLETON, Circuit Judge:
Appellant Kevin Sirman pled guilty to wire fraud and was sentenced to twelve
months and one day of incarceration followed by three years of supervised release. This
appeal followed.
Sirman’s counsel has filed an Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967).
I.
We have reviewed the record, and we agree with counsel for the government and
Sirman that there are no non-frivolous issues presented by this appeal. Specifically, there
are no non-frivolous issues with respect to the denial of Sirman’s motion for a downward
departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.13 1 or with respect to the reasonableness of his sentence.2
II.
We are satisfied that Sirman’s counsel has adequately fulfilled the requirements of
1
We have no jurisdiction to review discretionary denials of departure motions in
calculating Guidelines sentencing ranges. United States v. Batista, 483 F.3d 193, 199 (3d
Cir. 2007);
United States v. Jackson, 467 F.3d 834, 839 (3d Cir. 2006).
2
The record establishes that the sentence was procedurally reasonable, and the
sentence imposed was the result of a nearly 15 month variance below the bottom of the
Guidelines range.
2
Rule 109.2, and his motion to withdraw will be granted. The issues presented in this
appeal lack legal merit and thus do not require the filing of a petition for a writ of
certiorari with the Supreme Court.
III.
The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.
3