NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 , McK EE , and SHWARTZ, Circuit Judges

(Filed: December 11, 2019 )

_____________________ OPINION *

_____________________
SMITH, C

hief 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 (19 69). During the plea colloquy, the District Court noted th at the plea agreement contained an appellate
waiver. In response to the District Court’s inquiry, Baptiste affirmed that he understood
that he was giv i n g up his right to appeal any sentence below the statutory maximum. After

t he prosecution set forth the factual basis of the charge , Baptiste acknowledged the proffer and pleaded guilty.
After the District C ourt imposed a sentence of eighteen months of imprisonment, which was within the guid e li ne s range and well below the statutory maximum, Baptiste filed this timely appeal. 1 His counsel filed , pursuant to Anders v. California , a brief

as serting 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 exerci se 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 app ellate 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 set ting 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. ”
A lthough counsel’s Anders brief could be more comprehensive, we are satisfied that
counsel thoroughly examined the record for issues of arguable merit and fulfilled A nders ’ requirement s
. See United States v. Broce , 488 U.S. 563, 569 (1989) (instructing that a guilty plea limit s 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,

c ounsel correctly observed that Baptiste knowingly and voluntarily pleaded guilty and waived his right to file an appeal. Counsel also consider ed the legality of Baptiste’s

sentence , noting the absence of any issues based on the computation of the guideline s range, the District Court’s consideration of the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) , and the imposi tion of the eighteen

- month sentence within the guideline s 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, w e 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 t hus do not require the filing of a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court. Third Cir cuit L

. A

. R

. 109.2(b).