2011 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

6-20-2011

USA v. Ross Purdy

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 10-1697

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2011 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"USA v. Ross Purdy" (2011). 2011 Decisions. Paper 1074.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011/1074
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

__________

No. 10-1697

__________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

ROSS PURDY,

 Appellant

__________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Criminal No. 1-09-cr-00081-001)

District Judge: The Honorable Christopher C. Conner

__________

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

May 27, 2011

BEFORE: FUENTES, FISHER, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.

(Filed: June 20, 2011)

__________

OPINION OF THE COURT

__________

NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.
2

Ross Purdy appeals his sentence resulting from his plea of guilty to a count of 

possession of a firearm as an armed career criminal, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) 

and 924(e). Purdy was sentenced to 180 months’ imprisonment, the mandatory penalty 

under the Armed Career Criminal Act. Counsel for Purdy has filed a brief pursuant to 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and requested leave to withdraw. Because we 

are satisfied that there are no non-frivolous issues which Purdy may appeal, we will 

affirm the District Court’s sentence and grant Purdy’s counsel leave to withdraw.

I.

Because we write primarily for the parties, we set forth only the facts and history 

that are relevant to our conclusion. Purdy pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement, in 

which the parties stipulated that he would receive a sentence of 180 months’ 

imprisonment. The District Court held a sentencing hearing at which it found the

advisory guidelines calculation accurate, disposed of all objections, and sentenced Purdy 

to 180 months’ imprisonment.

Purdy filed a timely notice of appeal. Counsel filed an Anders brief and requested 

leave to withdraw. Purdy was given the opportunity to file a brief pro se, but has not 

done so.

II.

When a court-appointed appellate counsel can identify no non-frivolous issues for 

appeal, she must “so advise the Court and request permission to withdraw,” 

accompanying her request with a brief “referring to anything in the record that might 

arguably support the appeal.” Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. This brief must show that counsel 
3

“scoured the record in search of appealable issues” and explain why any issues identified 

are “frivolous.” United States v. Marvin, 211 F.3d 778, 780 (3d Cir. 2000). We must 

then determine whether counsel “adequately fulfilled the rule’s requirements” and 

whether “an independent review of the record presents any nonfrivolous issues.” United 

States v. Youla, 241 F.3d 296, 300 (3d Cir. 2001). However, when the Anders brief 

appears adequate, we limit our scrutiny to those issues and portions of the record 

identified by the brief. Id. at 301.

Here, counsel’s Anders brief appears adequate. Counsel has identified three 

possible issues: the jurisdiction of the court to hear the case; the knowingness and 

voluntariness of Purdy’s guilty plea; and the reasonableness of Pudy’s sentence. In each 

instance, we agree with counsel that the issue is frivolous. Purdy pleaded guilty to a 

violation of the law of the United States, namely, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), 924(e). Because 

the violation of this law occurred in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, the Middle District of 

Pennsylvania had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. The District Court conducted an

adequate colloquy to assure that Purdy understood the nature and consequences of his 

plea. See, e.g., Iowa v. Tovar, 541 U.S. 77, 92 (2004). Finally, the District Court 

properly considered the factors specified in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) before sentencing Purdy 

to a term of imprisonment within the range which he himself had indicated would be 

appropriate.

III.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the sentence of the District Court and grant 

defense counsel permission to withdraw from the case. We find that counsel has 
4

adequately shown that there are no non-frivolous appealable issues and our independent 

review of the record reveals that there are no appealable issues of merit. In addition, we 

certify that the issues presented lack legal merit and that counsel is not required to file a 

petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States. See Third 

Circuit Local Rule 109.2(b).