Case ID: f-appx_517/html/0117-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America v. Tom ELLIOTT, III, Appellant.
    No. 12-2892.
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) April 22, 2013.
    Filed April 30, 2013.
    William A. Behe, Esq., Office of United States Attorney, Harrisburg, PA, for United States of America.
    Tom Elliott, III, Minersville, PA, pro se.
    Laurence C. Kress, Esq., Harrisburg, PA, for Tom Elliott, III.
    Before: JORDAN, ALDISERT, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION OF THE COURT

NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.

Appellant Tom Elliott pleaded guilty to violating the terms of his supervised release order and was sentenced to nine months of imprisonment to be served consecutively with a one hundred and forty-month sentence imposed on the same day for other federal crimes. Elliott filed a timely appeal. His counsel, Laurence C. Kress, Esq., filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), representing that there were no nonfrivolous issues to present on appeal and asking leave to withdraw as counsel. Counsel explained that, based on his review, there was no basis for challenging the revocation proceeding or Elliott’s plea.

In light of the District Court’s finding that Elliot knowingly and voluntarily pleaded guilty to the underlying drug charges, counsel asserts herein that there was no ground on which to challenge the validity of the guilty plea to the supervised release violation. We agree. Nor was there any basis, in counsel’s view, to question the procedural or substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed. Counsel pointed out that the guideline range was correctly calculated and that Elliott’s sentence was at the low end of that range. Furthermore, the District Court fully considered the § 3553(a) sentencing factors and explained its reasons for imposing the sentence at the bottom of the guideline range. We see no error, procedural or substantive, in the District Court’s sentence.

We therefore conclude that counsel has adequately fulfilled his obligations under Anders. See United States v. Youla, 241 F.3d 296, 300 (3d Cir.2001). In accordance with Anders, we have independently reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court. We also grant counsel’s request to withdraw. Finally, we certify that the issues presented in the appeal lack legal merit and do not require counsel to file a petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. We will grant counsel’s motion to withdraw in a separate order. 
      
      . The District Court exercised jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3231 and 3583(e)(3). We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
     
      
      . Counsel filed an Anders brief relating to Elliott’s conviction on the underlying drug conviction at No. 12-2812. On April 17, 2013, a panel of this Court affirmed the judgment of conviction and granted counsel’s motion to withdraw.
     
      
      . We note that, consistent with Third Circuit L.A.R. 109.2(a), counsel served a copy of his Anders brief upon Elliott. Also, the Clerk’s Office notified Elliott of his right to file his own pro se brief. We have received no such submission from Elliott.