2004 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
1-30-2004 

# U S A v . Olmedo
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 . 02-4105

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

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 a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t 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 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr a t 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 a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it a t ion

" U SA v . Olme do " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1059. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/10591 

### NOT PRECED ENTIAL UNITED S TATES COUR T OF APPEAL S FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 02-4105
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. THOMAS J. OLMEDO a/k/ a WHITE BOY TOMMY THOMAS OLMEDO

Appellant
On Appeal from the United States Distri ct Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Crim. No. 01-cr-00449 ) District Judge: Honorable Petrese B. Tucker
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

January 15, 2004 Before: Sloviter , Rendell and Aldisert , Circuit Judges
.

(Filed January

30, 2004 )

OPINION OF THE COURT2



### ALDISE RT, Circuit

Judge
. Counsel hassubmit

ted for our c onsidera

tion a bri ef filed unde

r the te achings of Anders v. C alifornia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967)– an appointed appella te counse l who “finds [a] case to b e wholly frivolou s, after a conscien tious examination of” the case must so advise this cou rt and reque st permission to with draw. 386 U.S. at 744 . The reque st must be accompanied by “a brief referring to anything in the recor d that might argu ably support the appeal.” Id. A copy of counsel’s brief was furnished to Appellant, who was given time to rais e any non-frivolous arguments in a pro se brief. Id . at 744; 3r d Cir. R. 109.2(a). A ppellant has n ot filed such a brief. The Anders brief hasreferr ed us to port

ions of the r

ecord tha t arguabl y pr esent non-frivolous issues and has identified the following sole issue: the c ourt may have erred in denying Olmedo’s motio n for a do wnward d eparture based on his diminish ed capacity for the claim that

his criminal

history overstates the se

riousness of his prior crim inal conduct. The policy

state ment for dimini shed capa

city set fort h in the Sent

encing Guidelines p rovides in p art:

[T]he court m

ay not depart

below the a

pplicable guideline range if 1) the significantly reduced mental ca

pacity was caused by the volunta

ry use of drugs or

other int oxicants ; 2) the facts and circumstances of th e defend ant’s offe nse indicate a need to protect the p ublic because the offen se involved actual violence or s erious t hreat of vi olence; or 3) the defend ant’s criminal history indicates a need to3 

### incarcerate

the defendant to protect the public. U.S.S.G. § 5K2.13. The district court considered the departure m otion and determined that even though Olmedo may have suffered from diminished capacity, he did not meet any of the three

conditions necessary

for application of downward departure under § 5K2.13
. We are sati sfied that the district court knew that it had the authority to impose a downward departure and exercised its discre tion not to do so. Accordingly, this c ourt does not h ave jurisdictio n. United States v. Torres , 209 F.3d 308, 309 n.1 (3d Cir. 2000), cert. denied , 531 U.S. 864 (2000). We are sati sfied that no non frivolous argument could be presented in the case at bar. Bec ause couns el has c omplied with all of the procedures specified in Anders , 

### we will grant his motio n for with drawal. For the reason s set forth, we w ill dismiss Olmedo’s appeal.

TO THE CLER K: Please file the foregoing opini on.

s/Ruggero J. Aldisert Circuit Judge4 O:\UNPUBLIS\2002\024105np.wpd