2013 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

6-25-2013

USA v. Alexander Lopez-Cintron

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 12-4099

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013

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 2013 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. Alexander Lopez-Cintron" (2013). 2013 Decisions. Paper 635.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013/635
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

__________

No. 12-4099

__________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

ALEXANDER LOPEZ-CINTRON, a/k/a Cain

ALEXANDER LOPEZ-CINTRON,

 Appellant

__________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Criminal No. 1-11-cr-00243-001)

District Judge: Honorable John E. Jones, III

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

June 11, 2013

BEFORE: McKEE, Chief Judge, AMBRO and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

(Filed: June 25, 2013)

__________

OPINION OF THE COURT

__________

NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.

Jennifer P. Wilson, Esq., counsel for Appellant Alexander Lopez-Cintron, has 

filed a motion to withdraw from this case and has submitted a brief to support this appeal. 
2

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel argues that there are no 

non-frivolous issues that can be raised on appeal by Lopez-Cintron, who was given a 

copy of the motion and the brief with the notice that he could file a pro se brief. He 

elected not to do so.

Lopez-Cintron entered into a guilty plea before the District Court to one count of 

conspiracy to distribute twenty-eight grams and more of cocaine base and cocaine, in 

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Lopez-Cintron was assigned a criminal history category of 

V, and an offense level of twenty-three, which placed his Sentencing Guideline range 

from 84 to 108 months imprisonment. After conducting a thorough sentencing hearing, 

the District Court sentenced Lopez-Cintron to eighty-four months of imprisonment, four 

years of supervised release, a special assessment, and a $500.00 fine. He timely 

appealed. 

Under Anders v. California, if appellate counsel “finds his case to be wholly 

frivolous, after a conscientious examination of it, he should so advise the court and 

request permission to withdraw. That request must, however, be accompanied by a brief 

referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.” 386 U.S. 738, 

744 (1967). “The Court’s inquiry when counsel submits an Anders brief is thus twofold: 

(1) whether counsel adequately fulfilled the rule’s requirements; and (2) whether an 

independent review of the record presents any non-frivolous issues.” United States v. 

Youla, 241 F.3d 296, 300 (3d Cir. 2001). 

As to the guilty plea, Lopez-Cintron entered into the negotiated agreement 

knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. The District Court carefully explained to 
3

Lopez-Cintron the rights and the ramifications of entering a plea of guilty. The District 

Court also confirmed that Lopez-Cintron was mentally competent, was not under the

influence of any medication or other substance, and that he understood the nature of the 

proceedings. The record, therefore, clearly supports the finding that Lopez-Cintron made 

a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary plea.

We likewise see no error in Lopez-Cintron’s sentence. The District Court fully 

complied with Rule 32 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Moreover, the 

District Court identified the correct Guideline range, and examined the relevant 

sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The District Court ultimately sentenced 

Lopez-Cintron to the lower end of the Guideline range. We find no error with this 

sentencing procedure used by the District Court. Any argument that the sentencing 

process was illegal would be frivolous.

Finally, we have conducted our own independent examination of the record, and 

conclude that there are no non-frivolous issues that could be raised on appeal. Thus, we 

will affirm the District Court’s judgment of sentence and we will grant counsel’s motion 

to withdraw.

In conclusion, we find that no non-frivolous issues exist for consideration on 

appeal. We will grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, pursuant to Anders, and affirm the 

judgment of the District Court. Counsel is also relieved of any obligation to file a 

petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 109.2(b).