NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

_____________

No. 18-2739

_____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

DEAN BAPTISTE,

 Appellant 

_____________

On Appeal from the District Court

of the Virgin Islands

District Court No. 3-17-cr-00012-003

District Judge: The Hon. Curtis V. Gomez 

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

December 9, 2019

_____________

Before: SMITH, Chief Judge, McKEE, and SHWARTZ, Circuit Judges

(Filed: December 11, 2019)

 

_____________________

 OPINION*

_____________________

 

SMITH, Chief Judge.

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.
2

Dean Baptiste pleaded guilty to one count of smuggling an alien into the United 

States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324. The written plea agreement contained a broad 

appellate waiver. The District Court’s colloquy satisfied the requirements of Federal Rule

of Criminal Procedure 11(b) and Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 243-44 (1969). During 

the plea colloquy, the District Court noted that the plea agreement contained an appellate 

waiver. In response to the District Court’s inquiry, Baptiste affirmed that he understood 

that he was giving up his right to appeal any sentence below the statutory maximum. After 

the prosecution set forth the factual basis of the charge, Baptiste acknowledged the proffer 

and pleaded guilty. 

After the District Court imposed a sentence of eighteen months of imprisonment,

which was within the guidelines range and well below the statutory maximum, Baptiste 

filed this timely appeal.1 His counsel filed, pursuant to Anders v. California, a brief 

asserting that there are no nonfrivolous issues to raise on Baptiste’s behalf.2 In addition, 

counsel seeks leave to withdraw.3

In Anders, the Supreme Court stated that the “constitutional requirement of 

 

1 The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231 and 48 U.S.C. § 1612(a). 

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

2 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). We exercise plenary review to determine 

whether the record presents any nonfrivolous issues. Simon v. Gov’t of V.I., 679 F.3d 109, 

114 (3d Cir. 2012).

3 Defense counsel served the motion to withdraw and the Anders brief on Baptiste. The 

Clerk notified Baptiste that he could file his own pro se merits brief under Third Circuit 

L.A.R. 109.2(a). Baptiste has not done so.
3

substantial equality and fair process” means that appellate counsel must “support his 

client’s appeal to the best of his ability.” 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). If counsel finds an

appeal wholly frivolous, he must apprise the court, submit a brief setting out any matter 

that “might arguably support the appeal,” and request permission to withdraw as counsel. 

Id. As we explained in United States v. Youla, 241 F.3d 296, 300 (3d Cir. 2001), the Anders

brief must demonstrate that counsel “thoroughly examined the record in search of 

appealable issues,” and “explain why the issues are frivolous.” 

Although counsel’s Anders brief could be more comprehensive, we are satisfied that 

counsel thoroughly examined the record for issues of arguable merit and fulfilled Anders’

requirements. See United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563, 569 (1989) (instructing that a 

guilty plea limits the issues a defendant is entitled to challenge on appeal to the District 

Court’s jurisdiction, the validity of the guilty plea, and the legality of the sentence). Here, 

counsel correctly observed that Baptiste knowingly and voluntarily pleaded guilty and 

waived his right to file an appeal. Counsel also considered the legality of Baptiste’s 

sentence, noting the absence of any issues based on the computation of the guidelines

range, the District Court’s consideration of the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a), and the imposition of the eighteen-month sentence within the guidelines range. 

Finally, counsel correctly concluded that even if there were a nonfrivolous basis to assert 

an ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim, it is not a claim generally addressed on 

direct appeal. Gov’t of V.I. v. Vanterpool, 767 F.3d 157, 163 (3d Cir. 2014). 
4

After reviewing the record, we agree with counsel’s assessment that there are no 

nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we will grant counsel’s motion to withdraw 

and affirm the District Court’s judgment. We certify that the issues presented in the appeal 

lack legal merit and thus do not require the filing of a petition for writ of certiorari with the 

Supreme Court. Third Circuit L.A.R. 109.2(b).