United States v. Brenton Holmes

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 09-3416
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
BRENTON HOLMES,
Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Criminal No. 09-cr-00068-002)
District Judge: Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
May 26, 2010
Before: McKEE, Chief Judge, RENDELL and GARTH, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: May 27, 2010)
OPINION OF THE COURT
RENDELL, Circuit Judge.
Defendant Brenton Holmes pled guilty to interfering with interstate commerce by
robbery, conspiring to do the same, and using and carrying a firearm during a crime of
violence. The District Court sentenced him to 157 months’ imprisonment, which
included concurrent terms of 37 months’ imprisonment on the first two counts and a
consecutive term of 120 months’ imprisonment on the third count. Although Holmes
sought to appeal his sentence, his counsel has filed a motion in accordance with Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), seeking to withdraw from representing Holmes and
asserting that there are no nonfrivolous arguments for appeal. We agree with counsel,
and will grant the motion and affirm the Judgment of the District Court.1
In Anders, the Supreme Court held that “if counsel finds his case to be wholly
frivolous, after a conscientious examination of it, he should so advise the court and
request permission to withdraw.” 386 U.S. at 744. However, counsel must support his
request with “a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the
appeal.” Id. Thus, counsel has two obligations: “(1) to satisfy the court that he or she
has thoroughly scoured the record in search of appealable issues; and (2) to explain why
the issues are frivolous.” United States v. Marvin, 211 F.3d 778, 780 (3d Cir. 2000).
Counsel argues that the only potential ground for appeal is an error in sentencing,
but concedes that the sentence imposed by the District Court was reasonable.2 We agree
with counsel that the sentence does not present any nonfrivolous issues for appeal. The
District Court followed the three-step process that we require for sentencing, in which the
Court must calculate the Guideline range applicable to a defendant, formally rule on any
1
The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231, and we have
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
2
Holmes has not exercised his option to file a pro se brief. See L.A.R. 109.2(a).
2
departure motions, and exercise its discretion by considering the factors set forth in 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United States v. Gunter, 462 F.3d 237, 247 (3d Cir. 2006). The
Court correctly calculated the Guideline range for the robbery and conspiracy counts as
37 to 46 months, properly determined that 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) required the imposition of a
consecutive ten-year sentence because Holmes had brandished a short-barreled shotgun
during the robbery, and correctly concluded that this resulted in a Guideline range of 157-
166 months. The Court also considered the factors set forth in § 3553(a), and reasonably
concluded that a 157-month sentence was appropriate in light of the seriousness of the
offense, the defendant’s criminal history, and the need for specific and general deterrence.
Thus, we find no error in the Court’s imposition of a 157-month sentence. Based on our
independent review of the record, we also agree with counsel that there are no other
nonfrivolous grounds for appeal.
We conclude that counsel has satisfied his obligations under Anders. We will
therefore affirm the Judgment of the District Court and will grant counsel’s motion to
withdraw. We further hold that the issues presented in this appeal lack legal merit for
purposes of counsel filing a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court. See 3d Cir.
L.A.R. 109.2(b).
3