United States v. Smith

Opinions of the United
2003 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
4-17-2003
USA v. Smith
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket 02-2343
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Smith" (2003). 2003 Decisions. Paper 644.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003/644
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 2003 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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 02-2343
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
RODNEY SMITH,
Appellant
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
(Dist. Court No. 00-CR-24-07)
District Court Judge: Ronald L. Buckwalter
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
April 7, 2003
Before: ALITO, FUENTES, GREENBERG, Circuit Judges
(Opinion Filed: April 17, 2003)
OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM:
Defendant, Rodney Smith, pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possession
with intent to distribute more than 100 grams of crack cocaine, heroin, PCP, and marijuana
in violation of 21 U.S.C. §846. After holding an evidentiary hearing, the District Court
found the defendant’s base offense level at 26 and a criminal history at category III. The
District Court imposed a sentence of 88 months imprisonment, five years of supervised
release and a $100.00 special assessment. This timely appeal followed.
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and Third Circuit Local
Appellate Rule 109.2(a), defendant’s counsel certifies that, based on her review of the
record, she “can find no non-frivolous issues for appeal.” After engaging in an independent
review of the record, see United States v. Youla, 241 F.3d 296, 299-300 (3d Cir. 2001), we
agree and therefore affirm the District Court’s judgment of commitment and sentence. We
also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.