2004 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
12-17-2004 

# U S A v . F r a nco -S a nche z P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 02-3388

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" U SA v . F r a nc o -S a nchez " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 64. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/64NOT PRE CEDENT IAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT


### No: 02-3388
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. JULIO FRANCO Julio Franco-Sanchez, Appellant

______________________________ App eal from th e Un ited States District Co urt for the Dis tri ct of New Jersey (D.C. No. 01-cr -00794) Distri ct Judge: Dennis M. Cavanaugh
Submitte d Under Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

on September 27, 2004 Befor e: ROTH, BARRY and GARTH , Circuit Judges (fil ed: December 17, 2004)

OPI NION ROTH, Circuit

Judge: Counsel for Julio Franco-Sanchez has filed a motion to withdraw from the case and has submit

ted a bri ef to suppor

t thi s appeal pur suant t o And ers v. C aliforn ia , 386 U. S.2

738 (1967). Counsel argues that t here are no non-fri volous i ssues t hat can be r aised on appeal by

France-Sanche z. Franco- Sanchez was given a copy of the moti on and the bri ef with the notice that he coul d file a pro se brie f. H e ele cted not to d o so . Juli o Franco-Sanchezis a ci tize n of Ecuador. He is not a le gal res ident of the United Stat es. On Jul y 5, 1988, Franco- Sanchez was convict ed in the United Stat es Distri ct Court f

or the Sout

hern District

of Texas for conspiring t o possess a control led substanc e with the intent to dis tribute. This offense qua lifi es as an aggr avated fel ony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)( 43). After Franco-Sanchezserved hi s sente nce, he was deported ba ck to Ecuador on November 2, 1991. Before boar ding the pl ane, t he INS gave Franco-SanchezINS Form I-294. Thi s form stated that he was not t o re-ent er the Unit ed States within five years and that if he retur ned to the country

in viol ation of

the order , he
wo uld rece ive a priso n se nten ce u p to two years. Appellant

retur ned ill egall y i nto the Unit ed State s on January 7, 1997, and took up resi dence in Je rsey

City , New Jersey , where he was found and ar rest ed by INS agents on May 23, 2001. He pled guil ty to viol ating 8 U. S.C. §§ 1326(a) and (b)( 2). On August 19, 2003, the Distri ct Court s entenced Fr anco-Sanchez t o 41 months impri sonment, whic h was at the l ower end of the appl icabl e federalsentencing guidelines. Fr anco-Sanchez filed an a ppe al of

this ju dgm ent o f se nten ce. After reviewing counsel’s Anders brief, we conclude that this case does not r aise
an y non -f

ri vol ous is su es . T he re fo re , w e wi llaf fi rm t he Dis tric t C our

t’ s s en te nc e a nd w e3

wil l also gra nt co uns el’s m otio n to wit hdr aw . We adhere to a twofold inquir y when anal yzi ng Anders brie fs. United Stat es v. Yo ula , 241 F.3d 296, 300 (3d Cir. 2001). Thi s inqui ryconsist s of the fol lowing: “( 1) whether counseladequately ful fill ed the rul e’s re quirement s; and ( 2) whether an independent

review of the record pr esents any nonfrivolous issues .” Id. Regarding the firs t is sue, we find t

hat counsel ’s bri ef is ade quate. When an attorney submits an Anders brief, his dut ies ar e (1) t o demonstrat e to the court t hat he has t

horoughly

examined the
reco rd f or a ppe alab le iss ues , and (2) to dem ons trate that t he is sue s are friv olo us. Id. In atte nding to hi s duti es “[c]ouns el need not rais e and rej ect ever

y poss ible c laim. ” Id. Co unse l need s only to sa tisfy the “c onsc ientiou s exa mina tion” sta ndar d set fo rth in Anders. I

d. We are sati sfied t

hat counselhas met thi s standard. He dil igently se arched the rec ord for any

potenti al appeal able i ssues arisi ng from the pl ea proceedi ng and the sentencing proceedi ng and support ed his cl aims of fri volousness with cit ations to rel evant case law. Thus, the Anders brie f inq uiry tur ns o n ou r ind epe nde nt se arch of th e rec ord
. Id. When an Anders brief a ppears adequate on it s face, our independe nt examination of the re cord is to be guide d by t he Anders brie f itse lf. Yo ula , 241 F.3d at 301. Counsel raises thr ee possible issues for r eview in his Anders brief: (1) wh ether the D istrict Court conducted a s uffici ently thorough pl ea heari ng in order to ensur e that

the ple a was know ing, intelligent and vo luntary; (2) whether F ranco-Sa nchez’s d ue proce ss rights were4

violat ed because he r elie d on an erroneous stat ement contained in INS Form I-294, which stat ed that

he could not

be impris oned more than t wo years for il legal re-ent ry ; and (3) whether the sentence was improper. On the basis of our revi ew, we agree that all t hree issu es a re w itho ut m erit, a nd h enc e fri vol ous . The guilt y pl ea was made knowingly , int elli gently and voluntaril y. The Distri ct Court care fully

explai ned to Franco- Sanchez his rights and the ramifications of ent ering a plea of gui lty . The District Court als o made sure that the a ppellant unders tood the c harge and th e pote ntial pe nalties, d eterm ined th at Fran co-S anch ez w as satisf ied w ith his attor ney, and ascert ained that the plea pre sented by the pros ecuti on was correct . The record cl early

supports the fi nding that Franco-Sanchezmade a knowing, int elli gent and vol unt ary w aive r. With respe ct to the erron eous INS Form I-294 , we h ave d ealt w ith this issu e in simil ar cir cumstances and have held t hat the inaccur acy of t

he form does not vi olate due pro ces s. Un ited Sta tes v. M cCa lla , 38 F .3d 67 5, 679 (3d C ir. 1994 ). Wh ile we reiterate the lamentable nat

ure of thi s error , we have held t hat it is the crimi nal st atute , not t he language of the INS form , “which must clearly set forth the act ivity

which constitutes a crime and t

he punishment a

uthori zed for committing such a crime.” Id. The re is ther efo re n o vi olati on o f du e pr oce ss h ere. As to sente ncing, again there was no err or. The appl icabl e sentenc ing guidel ine range was cal culat ed in the present ence report. The Dis tri ct Court indicat ed the5

guideline range and how it was chosen. Franco-Sanchez was then sentenc ed to the minimu m senten ce within the range. W e find no problem with the sen tencing pro cedure used by the D istrict Co urt. A ny argu men t that the s enten cing p roces s wa s illegal w ould be f rivo lou s. After our i ndependent exami nation of the rec ord, we find t

hat the re are no nonfrivolous issues th at could be raised on ap peal. Thu s, we w ill affirm the D istrict Court’s jud gem ent o f se nten ce a nd w e w ill gra nt co uns el’s m otio n to wit hdr aw .