NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

____________

No. 13

- 3527

____________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. WILMER VASQUEZ

- ALGARIN, Appellant

____________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Mid dle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 1

- 1 1

- cr - 0 0200

- 0 03 ) District Judge: Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo

____________ Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) June 2, 2014 Before: HARDIMAN , S CIRICA and ROTH , Circuit Judges

. (Filed: July 9, 2014 )

____ ________ OPINION

____________ HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge

. Wilmer Vasquez

- Algarin appeals the District Court’s judgment of conviction and sentencing order. Counsel for Vasquez

- Algarin has moved for permission to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California , 38 6 U.S. 738 (1967). We will grant counsel’s motion and2 affirm the District Court’s order.
I Because we write for the parties, who are well acquainted with the case, we recite only the facts and procedural history essential to our decision. Vasquez

- Alga rin pleaded guilty under a plea agreement to one count of conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute and dispense 500 grams or more of cocaine hydrochloride. 21 U.S.C. § § 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B)(ii), 846. The plea agreement included

a w aiver of the right to a direct appeal. A Spanish interpreter translated the plea agreement for Vasquez

- Algarin, who does not speak English. Vasquez

- Algarin signed the agreement and testified at the change of plea hearing that he knowingly and voluntarily e ntered into it

. Before sentencing, Vasquez

- Algarin filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which the District Court denied. The District Court sentenced Vasquez

- Algarin to 108 months’ imprisonment, the bottom of the G uidelines range. Vasquez

- Algarin filed this timely appeal, and his counsel moved to withdraw. 1
II In a case arising under Anders , we determine whether: (1) counsel has adequately fulfilled the Anders requirements; and (2) an independent review of the record presents any

non - frivolous is sues. United States v. Youla , 241 F.3d 296, 300 (3d Cir. 2001). To meet the first prong, appointed counsel must examine the record, conclude that3 there are no non

- frivolous issues for review, and request permission to withdraw. Counsel must accompany a mo tion to withdraw with “a brief referring to anything in the record that migh t arguably support the appeal.” Anders , 386 U.S. at 744. Defense counsel identified
two potential ground s for appeal

— Vasquez

- Algarin’s request to withdraw his guilty plea and the District Court’s Guidelines calculation

— and discussed why they lack merit. A defendant must establish a “fair and just reason” in order to withdraw a guilty plea.
See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d). That analysis turns on three factors: “ (1) whether the defendant asserts his innocence; (2) the strength of the defendant ’ s reasons for withdrawing the plea; and (3) whether the government would be prejudiced by the withdrawal. ” United States v.
Jones , 336 F.3d 245, 252 (3d Cir. 2003) . The District Court properly denie d the motion. Vasquez

- Algarin cannot dispute that he understood the agreement because a Spanish interpreter translated the plea hearing proceedings and the plea agreement for him

. Nor has he asserted his innocence; in fact he restated his guilt in a heari ng on the motion to withdraw. With respect to the Distr ict Court’s calculation of the G uidelines range for the sentence, Vasquez

- Algarin’s counsel rightly notes that Vasquez

- Algarin waived his right to a direct appeal. In sum, w e find that counsel’s disc ussion of the reasons why no appealable issue exists meets the requirements of Anders ’s first prong. O ur independent review of the record under Anders ’s second prong confirms counsel’s view that there are no meritorious

1 The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have jurisdiction4 issues for appeal. Vasquez

- Algarin ’s plea agreement, which as we said was entered into knowingly and voluntarily, waived his right to a direct appeal. Thus, even if meritorious appellate issues existed, we would not review them

. III For the reasons stated, we will affirm the District Cour t’s judgment of conviction and sentence , and in a separate order, grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.