2014 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

7-8-2014

USA v. Russ Reggie

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 13-1786

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2014

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 2014 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"USA v. Russ Reggie" (2014). 2014 Decisions. Paper 675.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2014/675
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

____________

No. 13-1786

____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

RUSS J. REGGIE, 

 Appellant

____________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. No. 12-po-00014)

District Judge: Honorable Malachy E. Mannion

____________

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

June 6, 2014

Before: HARDIMAN, SCIRICA, and ROTH, Circuit Judges.

(Filed: July 8, 2014)

____________

OPINION

____________

HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge.

Russ Reggie appeals his judgment of sentence after pleading guilty to two petty 

offenses. His attorney has moved to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
2

738 (1967). For the reasons that follow, we will grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and 

affirm the judgment of the District Court.

I

On November 1, 2011, a security officer at the Veterans Administration Medical 

Center in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, stopped Reggie after seeing him driving against 

the flow of traffic with his hazard lights flashing. When the officer approached, he 

smelled alcohol emanating from both Reggie and the car. The officer learned from a 

check of Reggie’s driving history that his license had been suspended, and a search of the 

vehicle found 23 cans of opened and unopened beer and three knives with blades longer 

than three inches. Reggie failed three field sobriety tests and was admitted to the hospital 

for alcohol intoxication.

Reggie received five violation notices as a result of the stop. On November 6, 

2012, he pleaded guilty to operating a vehicle under the influence of alcoholic beverages,

38 C.F.R § 1.218(b)(15); and driving with a suspended license, 18 U.S.C. § 13, ref. 75 

Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1543(a). Reggie faced a maximum six-month prison term and a $5,000 

fine. However, at sentencing, counsel for both sides recommended probation, noting

Reggie’s status as an honorably discharged Vietnam veteran who later suffered combatrelated issues. Reggie’s attorney also spoke of Reggie’s limited criminal record and the 

fact that Reggie was homeless and living in his vehicle at the time of the incident in 

question, having lost his trailer and suffered an injury due to hurricane-related flooding in 

September 2011.
3

The District Court praised Reggie for his military service and complimented him 

on his efforts to get his life back on track. However, the District Court also observed that 

most of the other offenses on Reggie’s record involved alcohol and warned him about the 

dangers of drinking and driving. The District Court then sentenced Reggie to one year of 

probation, a $200 fine, a special assessment of $20, and a $50 processing fee.

Reggie filed a pro se notice of appeal on March 18, 2013. His counsel moved to

withdraw pursuant to Anders. Reggie has not filed a pro se brief.1

II

Under Anders we ask whether: (1) counsel has adequately fulfilled the

requirements of Third Circuit Local Appellate Rule 109.2(a) and (2) an independent 

examination of the record reveals any nonfrivolous issues. United States v. Coleman, 575 

F.3d 316, 319 (3d Cir. 2009) (citing United States v. Youla, 241 F.3d 296, 300 (3d Cir. 

2001)).

The first prong of the Anders test requires counsel to analyze the record, ascertain 

that no nonfrivolous issues exist for review, and ask permission to withdraw. Youla, 241 

F.3d at 300. The motion to withdraw must be accompanied by a “brief referring to 

anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.” Anders, 386 U.S. at 744.

The brief must “satisfy the court that counsel has thoroughly examined the record in 

search of appealable issues, and . . . explain why the issues are frivolous.” Youla, 241 

F.3d at 300.

 

1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 
4

Reggie’s counsel identifies three potential issues for appeal: (1) the District 

Court’s jurisdiction to accept the guilty plea; (2) the guilty plea’s validity in light of 

controlling constitutional and statutory standards; and (3) the procedural and substantive 

reasonableness of the sentence. Counsel’s discussion of the reasons why no appealable 

issue exists satisfies Anders’s first prong. Our independent review of the record also

confirms counsel’s conclusion that there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal, as 

explained below.

III

The first potential issue involves the District Court’s jurisdiction over the case. 

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3231, district courts have original jurisdiction over all offenses against 

the laws of the United States. Reggie was charged with and pleaded guilty to operating a 

vehicle under the influence of alcohol, in violation of 38 C.F.R. § 1.218(a)(7) and (b)(15),

a federal regulation, and driving with a suspended license, in violation of 75 Pa. Cons. 

Stat. § 1543, a state-law crime punishable in federal court under the Assimilative Crimes 

Act, 18 U.S.C. § 13. “Under the ACA, if conduct prohibited under state law occurs on 

federal land”—such as a Veterans Administration facility—“the state criminal law is 

assimilated into federal law so long as that conduct is not already made punishable by 

any ‘enactment of Congress.’” United States v. Hall, 979 F.2d 320, 322 (3d Cir. 1992) 

(quoting 18 U.S.C. § 13). In this way, the ACA “ensures uniformity between criminal 

prohibitions applicable within the federal enclave and within the surrounding state.” Id.

Here, there is no argument that driving with a suspended license is punishable by an act

of Congress. Consequently, federal jurisdiction was proper. 
5

The second argument is that Reggie’s guilty plea was not valid. To be valid, a 

guilty plea must be knowing and voluntary, in accordance with the standards elucidated 

in Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969), and Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal 

Procedure. Boykin requires the trial judge to conduct an on-the-record colloquy with the 

defendant to ensure he is aware of the important constitutional rights he waives by 

pleading guilty, including the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, the 

right to trial by jury, and the right to confront his accusers. 395 U.S. at 243. Rule 11 sets 

forth specific requirements for the colloquy a district court must conduct before accepting 

a guilty plea. The court must determine the factual basis for a plea, “inform the defendant 

of, and determine that the defendant understands” a list of rights he possesses, the nature 

of the crimes he is charged with, and potential consequences of pleading guilty, and 

ensure the plea is knowing and voluntary. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. 

Here, our independent review of the plea colloquy confirms that it was routine in 

every respect, and there is no indication that Reggie’s plea was not knowing and 

voluntary. In addition, as his counsel noted, Reggie has not moved to withdraw the plea 

or indicated that he wishes to withdraw it. The District Court properly accepted the guilty 

plea. 

The final issue the Anders brief raises is the reasonableness of Reggie’s sentence. 

As the District Court noted at the plea colloquy, Reggie pleaded guilty to petty offenses

not covered by the U.S. Sentencing Guideline; they carried a maximum of six months in 

jail and a $5,000 fine. The District Court thoughtfully weighed Reggie’s record and

personal history and imposed a sentence well below that—a sentence that also took into 
6

consideration Reggie’s apparent struggles with alcohol in an effort to help him improve 

his life. In addition, the $200 fine was mandatory under Pennsylvania law. The sentence 

was plainly reasonable. 

* * *

Having independently reviewed the record, we find no meritorious issues for 

appeal. For the reasons above, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court and grant 

counsel’s motion to withdraw.