NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 United 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 Judge
2

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 has 

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 only a brief recitation of the facts 

of this case and its procedural history. Estrella pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy 

to distribute, and 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). 

The District Court found Estrella’s total offense level to be 29. This gave him an 

advisory Guidelines range of between 87 and 108 months. His offense, however, carried 

a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years, thereby locking his Guidelines range in at 

120-months.

The District Court determined that the “safety valve” provision, 18 U.S.C. § 

3553(f)(1)–(5), applied. Estrella was sentenced to 108-months imprisonment, 12-months 

below the mandatory minimum 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 Local 
3

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 296, 

300 (3d Cir. 2011).

To satisfy the first requirement, appointed counsel must file a motion to withdraw 

and support it with a brief that “satisfies the court 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, Esquire, has 

examined the record for appealable issues and has explained why none have merit. The 

District 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 process 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 motion 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 THIRD CIRCUIT L.A.R. 109(2)(b).