NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 16

- 3906

_____________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. DARNELL YOUNG, a/k/a Darnell Monique Young a/k/a Darnell Young

- Hameed a/k/a Darnell Monique Young Living Trust a/k/a Darnell Issamadeen a/k/a Queen a/k/a Sistah D

Darnell Young, Appellant

_____________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania District Court No. 2

- 1 5

- cr - 00563

- 002 District Judge: Honorable Timothy J. Savage
Su bmitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

March 19, 2018 Before: SMITH, Chief Judge, HARDIMAN, and ROTH, Circuit Judges

( Opinion Filed: May 31, 2018 )

### 2 _____________________ OPINION *

_______________ ______ SMITH, Circuit Judge.
Darnell Young pleaded guilty to five counts of a multi

- count indictment: conspiring
to defraud th e United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; converting government property in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641; bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344; interfering with the administration of the internal revenue laws in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7212( a); and passing a false and fictitious document that purported to be an actual security or financial instrument issued under the authority of the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 514(a)(2). These charges were based on a fraudulent scheme carried out by Young, her paramour Steven Hameed, and another conspirator. The scheme began with the execution and filing of various documents with the Recorder of Deeds of Delaware County , Pennsylvania , which indicat ed that Young and Hameed owned real property t hat was actually owned by t he United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Young and Hameed then moved into the HUD property, living there from February 2010 to November 2012. Young and her conspirators engaged in similar conduct fo r more than fifty other parcels that were actually owned by HUD and more than twenty propert ies owned by Wells

* 

### This disposition is not an opinion of the full court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.

### 3

Fargo Bank, successfully renting some of the property to third parties. In addition, the conspirators created 273 fraudulent 1099

- DIVs and 1099

- INTs, representing that various government officials and employees had received significant dividend or interest income. These documents were filed with the IRS. Young and Hameed also tried to purchase a building using a false and fictitious document tha t appeared to be an actual security or financial instrument authorized by the United States Treasury. Prior to trial, the District Court grant ed motions in limine to bar any party fr om raising at trial that t he defendants were “sovereign citizens.” With in days of that ruling, Young pleaded guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement containing an appellate waiver. The waiver preserved Young’s right to challenge the District Court’s determination that it
had subject matter jurisdiction in the criminal ac tion and the Court’s in limine ruling that precluded argument to the jury that would refer to the defendants as “sovereign citizens.” At sentencing , the District Court not only reduced Young’s offense level by reducing the
amount of loss and the mass marketing enhancement, it also granted Young’s motion to depart downward on the basis that her criminal history category overstated the seriousness of her previous criminal conduct. In addition, the Court granted a downward variance and imposed a sentence of 40 months of imprisonment. This timely appeal followed. 1
Counsel filed an Anders brief, contending there are no non

- frivolous issues to be raised on appeal. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 , 744 (1967). Counsel correctly

1 

### We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)

.

### 4

points out that follo wing Young’s guilty plea, Young ’s appeal is l i mited to challenging whether s he could be haled into court on the charges in the indictment, whether her guilty plea was valid, and whether he r sentence was unlawful

. See United States v. Broce , 488 U.S. 563, 570

– 7 5 (1989). We agree with counsel that the record before us demonstrates that the District Court fully complied with the requirements of Federal Rule of C riminal Procedure 11 and Boykin v. Alabama , 395 U.S. 238 , 242

– 244 (1969). We also conclude that the District Court satisfied the requirements of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32 and this court’s three

step sentencing process set out in United States v. Gunter , 462 F.3d 237, 247 (3d Cir. 2006). Given the District Court’s favorable rulings in cal culating Young’s guideline range and its
g enerous downward variance, there is no basis for challenging the substantive reasonableness of the sentence of 40 months’ imprisonment. Finally, we address Young’s pro s e brief. 2 It asserts, inter alia , that the District
Court “ lacked jurisdiction to hear, convict, or bring any case in this fraudulently contrived Constructive Trust Case Matter” and generally refers to her status as a foreign sovereign immune from suit. Arguably, the issues raised in her brief fall within the exception contained with in the appellate waive r . T here is , however, no merit to her challenge . The District Court had jurisdiction to adjudicate thi s criminal action under 18 U.S.C. § 3231

.

2 

### Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 109.2(a), when counsel files a motion to withdraw and a supporting brief under Anders , the appellant may file pro se a brief in response.

### 5

Her brief presents no authority establishing otherwise. See United States v. Benabe , 654 F.3d 753, 767 (7th Cir. 2011) (“Regardless of an individual’s claime d status of descent, be it as a ‘ sovereign citizen, ’ a ‘ secured

- party creditor, ’ or a ‘flesh

- and

- blood human being,’ that person i s not beyond the jurisdiction of the courts.”). In sum, o ur review of the record confirms that counsel has met her obligations under Anders . We are satisfied that counsel thoroughly examined the record for issues of arguable merit

. See United States v. Youla , 241 F.3d 296, 300 (3d Cir. 2001). Our own review of the record fails to reveal any non

- frivolous issues to appeal. Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment. Furthermore, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw . We certify that the issues presented in the appeal lack legal merit and do not require the filing of a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court. 3d Cir. L.A.R. 109.2(b). In addition, we acknowledge Young’s motions to dismiss the case and vacate judgment, to st ay execution of sentence based on a coerced guilt[y] plea bargain , to dismiss for lack of subject matter, and for relief and intervention of assistance. We deny those motions because the arguments therein h ave already been considered in our discussion of counsel’s Anders brief and Young’ s pro se brief.