## 2006 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

4-7-2006 

# U SA v . As s mu s
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 05-2103

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min
. C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du

. 

## Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" U SA v . As s m us " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1289. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/1289* 

## The Honorable Louis H. Pollak, Senior District Judge, United States District Court, sitting by designation. NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No: 05-2103 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. WILLIAM ASSMUS,

Appellant On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey D.C. Criminal No. 04-cr-00439 District Judge: Hon. Jerome B. Simandle Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) March 27, 2006 Before: McKee, Van Antwerpen Circuit Judges and Pollak, District Judge * 

## (Opinion filed: April 7, 2006)

OPINION McKee, Circuit Judge William Assmus appeals the sentence that was imposed after he admitted violating the conditions of his supervised release. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm. Because we write primarily for the parties who are familiar with this case, we need

## 2 

## not set forth the factual or procedural background of this appeal. Defense counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), informing us that she has reviewed the record and found no nonfrivilous issues for appeal. Accordingly, she requests permission to withdraw. Our review of the record confirms counsel’s assessment that there are no nonfrivilous issues for appeal. The defendant admitted the violations of the supervised release that form the basis of his sentence after he was informed of his rights and stated on the record that he was satisfied with counsel’s representation. Although there was initially some confusion about the amount of credit defendant was entitled to for time previously spent in state custody, defense counsel correctly concludes that the court did not have authority to award that credit. See , 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b); U.S. v. Wilson , 503 U.S.329, 334 (1992). Moreover, counsel represents that she has attempted to resolve the issue of that credit, and that the issue “provides no basis for appeal.” Appellant’s brief at 14. Since there are no nonfrivilous issues for appeal, the judgment of conviction filed March 28, 2005 is hereby affirmed, and counsel will be granted leave to withdraw.