NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

__________ No. 11

- 1559

__________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. DAGOBERTO ENRIQUE ESTRELLA

a/k/a EL TIO a/k/a TONY DAGOBERTO ESTRELLA, Appellant

__________ On Appeal from the Uni ted States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Criminal No. 2

- 08

- cr - 00656

- 001 ) District Judge: The Honorable Susan D. Wigenton Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

January 10, 2012 BEFORE: FUENTES , JORDAN , and NYGAARD , Circuit Judges

(Filed : February 28, 2012 )

__________ OPINION OF THE COURT

__________ NYGAARD, Circuit Judge2

Dagoberto Enrique Estrella appeals the judgment of sentence imposed by the District Court following his plea of guilty pursuant to a plea agreement. His counsel ha s moved to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Estrella declined to submit a pro se brief

. We will grant counsel ’ s motion and affirm the judgment of the District Court.
I. Inasmuch as we write for the parties, we provide o nly a brief recitation of the facts of this case and its procedural history. Estrella pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute , an d possession with intent to distribute one kilogram or more, of a mixture or substance containing heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and § 841(b)(1)(A).
T he District C ourt found Estrella’s total offense level to be 29. This gave him an advisory Guidelines range of between 87 and 1 08 months. His offense, however, carried a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years, thereby locking his Guidelines range in at
120

- months.
T he District Court determined that th e “safety valve” provision, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(1)

– (5), applied. Estrella was sentence d to 108

- months imprisonment, 12

- months below the mandatory mi nimum sentence he would have otherwise received. Estrella filed a timely notice of appeal.
II. We exercise plenary review over an Anders motion. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 82

– 83 & n.6 (1988). Under Anders , when counsel files a motion to withdraw, we must determine first, “whether counsel adequately fulfilled [Third Circuit Local3

Appellate Rule 109.2(a) ] ’ s requirements,” and second, “whether an independent review of the record presents any non

- frivolous issues.” United States v. Youla , 241 F.3d 29 6, 300 (3d Cir. 2011). To satisfy the first requirement, appointed counsel must file a motion to withdraw and support it with a b rief that “satisfies the c ourt that counsel has thoroughly examined the record in search of appealable issues , and ... explain [s] why the issues are frivolous.”
Id . at 300. Counsel must “refer [ ] to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal,” Anders , 386 U.S. at 744, but “need not raise and reject every possible claim.”
Youla , 241 F.3d at 300. “[A]t a minimum , he or she must meet the “ conscientious examination ” standard set forth in Anders .” Id

. Here, we are satisfied that Estrella’s counsel , William J. Hunt, Esq uire, has examined the record for appealable issues and has explained why none have merit. The
Di strict Court conducted a thorough and extensive colloquy with Estrella

. The record reveals Estrella’s acknowledgement that he was not under the influence of drugs or alcohol, that he was satisfied with his attorney , and that he had discussed his case with counsel. Estrella further indicated that he understood the charges against him and what rights he was waiving by pleading guilty.
Moreover , Estrella’s sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable. The District Court followed the three

- step proc ess we endorsed in United States v. Gunter , 462 F.3d 237, 247 (3d Cir. 2006) , and gave “rational and meaningful consideration [to] the factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)” as we required in United States v. Grier , 475 F.3d 556, 571 (3d Cir. 2007) (en banc).4 III. We conclude that counsel has met the requirements of Anders , and our own independent review of the record reveals no nonfrivolous grounds for appeal. Therefore, we will affirm the District Court ’ s judgment of sentence and grant counsel ’ s moti on to withdraw. Counsel is also relieved of any obligation to file a petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. See T HIRD C IRCUIT L.A.R . 109(2)(b).