Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-09-02138/USCOURTS-ca3-09-02138-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gregory Rasaan Jackson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 09-2138

_____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

GREGORY RASAAN JACKSON,

 Appellant

____________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Delaware

(Criminal Action No. 04-00037-1)

District Judge: Honorable Gregory M. Sleet

____________

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

January 28, 2010

Before: RENDELL and JORDAN, Circuit Judges, 

and AMBROSE, District Judge.

(Filed: February 3, 2010)

__________________

 * Honorable Donetta W. Ambrose, Judge of the United States District Court for the

Western District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. 

Case: 09-2138 Document: 003110008265 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/03/2010
2

____________

OPINION OF THE COURT

____________

AMBROSE, District Judge.

 Appellant Gregory Jackson’s appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as

counsel pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493

(1967). The government has filed a brief in support of counsel’s motion. Jackson has

not filed any pro se brief in opposition to counsel’s motion. Because we are satisfied that

there exist no non-frivolous issues for direct appeal, and Jackson’s counsel has complied

with all duties under applicable law, we will grant counsel’s motion and dismiss the

appeal. 

I.

Because we write solely for the parties, we will limit our discussion to facts

relevant to framing the inquiry on appeal. 

On May 12, 2005, the District Court sentenced Jackson to forty-eight months of

imprisonment and three years of supervised release. The sentence followed Jackson’s

plea of guilty to an indictment charging him with one count of being a felon in possession

of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). He was released to supervised release on

November 14, 2007. While on supervised release, Jackson failed to appear for scheduled

appointments with his probation officer, failed to attend mental health counseling, and

Case: 09-2138 Document: 003110008265 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/03/2010
 Local Appellate Rule 109.2(a) provides, in pertinent part, as follows: 1

(continued...)

3

submitted urine samples that tested positive for cocaine. Additionally, on May 13, 2008, 

Jackson was arrested for second degree assault, after punching his wife and causing her

physical injury. He pleaded guilty to that charge in Delaware state court, and was

sentenced by the state court to eight years of imprisonment, suspended after serving three

years, as well as restitution. On January 9, 2009, the District Court issued an amended

petition on probation and supervised release. 

Subsequently, on April 4, 2009, the District Court held a revocation and sentencing

hearing. During the hearing, Jackson admitted to violating his supervised release. The

District Court determined that the advisory sentencing guideline range was thirty-three to

forty-one months, and that there was a statutory maximum of twenty-four months. The

District Court then revoked Jackson’s supervised release, and imposed a sentence of

twenty-four months imprisonment, to run consecutive to the state sentence. Jackson then

filed this timely appeal.

II.

The District Court had subject matter jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. This

Court has appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742. 

Under Anders, we engage in a two-part inquiry. First, we ask whether counsel

adequately fulfilled the requirements of Third Circuit Local Appellate Rule 109.2(a);1

Case: 09-2138 Document: 003110008265 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/03/2010
 (...continued) 1

Where, upon review of the district court record, counsel is persuaded that

the appeal presents no issue of even arguable merit, counsel may file a

motion to withdraw and supporting brief pursuant to Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967), which shall be served upon the appellant and the

United States... If the panel agrees that the appeal is without merit, it will

grant counsel's Anders motion, and dispose of the appeal without

appointing new counsel. 

4

second, we consider whether an independent review of the record presents any

non-frivolous issues for appeal. United States v. Coleman, 575 F.3d 316, 319 (3d Cir.

2009). In this context, moving counsel must demonstrate that the record has been

“thoroughly scoured . . . in search of appealable issues,” and must “explain why the issues

are frivolous.” United States v. Marvin, 211 F.3d 778, 780 (3d Cir. 2000). In engaging

in this inquiry, we review the Anders brief itself, as well as the record on appeal. If the

Anders brief appears facially adequate, however, we need not conduct a “complete

scouring of the record,” but instead may be “guided in reviewing the record by the Anders

brief itself,” as well defendant’s pro se brief. United States v. Youla, 241 F.3d 296, 301

(3d Cir. 2001). 

After reviewing the present record and counsel’s submissions, we conclude that

counsel has complied with the requirements of both Anders and LAR 109.2. Counsel has

provided copies of the Anders brief to both Jackson and the government. It is clear, as

well, that counsel has thoroughly examined the record in order to identify any appealable

issues, and explained why the sole potential grounds for appeal would be frivolous. We

Case: 09-2138 Document: 003110008265 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/03/2010
5

are satisfied that counsel’s Anders brief is adequate on its face. Accordingly, and because

Jackson did not file any pro se brief, we will confine our review of the record to those

portions identified in the Anders brief.

Upon independent review of the record, we reach the same conclusion as that

reached by counsel and the government. Counsel notes that Jackson may argue that his

sentence is unreasonable, but that the argument is frivolous because the Court explained

the reasons for its sentence and properly exercised its discretion. In reviewing a sentence,

we must ensure that the district court committed no procedural error, and then consider

the reasonableness of the sentence under an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United

States, 552 U.S. 38, 128. Ct. 586, 594, 169 L. Ed. 2d 445 (2007). 

During sentencing, the District Court discussed an uncharged gun offense, but

expressly and repeatedly stated that the offense was not part of its rationale for

sentencing. Instead, the Court stated that its sentence was based “most especially [on] the

factors outlined in Title 18, 3553(a),” and correctly calculated the applicable advisory

guideline range. Moreover, the Court adequately explained the basis for the sentence,

which involved, inter alia, Jackson’s history, characteristics, and the nature of the offense.

The Court’s decision was based on legally appropriate factors, reflects no procedural

error, and was not an abuse of discretion.

Case: 09-2138 Document: 003110008265 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/03/2010
6

III.

In conclusion, we are satisfied that there are no non-frivolous issues available to be

presented on appeal. We will AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court, and will

GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw. Pursuant to Third Circuit Local Appellate Rule

901.2(b), we further find that “the issues presented in the appeal lack legal merit for

purposes of counsel filing a petition for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme

Court.”

Case: 09-2138 Document: 003110008265 Page: 6 Date Filed: 02/03/2010