2013 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

4-30-2013

USA v. Tom Elliott, III

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 12-2892

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. Tom Elliott, III" (2013). 2013 Decisions. Paper 909.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013/909
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

__________

No. 12-2892

__________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

TOM ELLIOTT, III,

 Appellant

__________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Criminal No. 1-00-cr-00119-002)

District Judge: Honorable Yvette Kane

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

April 22, 2013

BEFORE: JORDAN, ALDISERT, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

(Filed: April 30, 2013)

__________

OPINION OF THE COURT

__________

NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.

Appellant Tom Elliott pleaded guilty to violating the terms of his supervised 

release order and was sentenced to nine months of imprisonment to be served 
2

consecutively with a one hundred and forty-month sentence imposed on the same day for 

other federal crimes. Elliott filed a timely appeal.1 His counsel, Laurence C. Kress, Esq., 

filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), representing that there 

were no nonfrivolous issues to present on appeal and asking leave to withdraw as 

counsel. Counsel explained that, based on his review, there was no basis for challenging 

the revocation proceeding or Elliott’s plea. 

In light of the District Court’s finding that Elliot knowingly and voluntarily 

pleaded guilty to the underlying drug charges, counsel asserts herein that there was no 

ground on which to challenge the validity of the guilty plea to the supervised release 

violation.

2

 We agree. Nor was there any basis, in counsel’s view, to question the 

procedural or substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed. Counsel pointed out 

that the guideline range was correctly calculated and that Elliott’s sentence was at the low 

end of that range. Furthermore, the District Court fully considered the § 3553(a)

sentencing factors and explained its reasons for imposing the sentence at the bottom of 

the guideline range. We see no error, procedural or substantive, in the District Court’s 

sentence.

We therefore conclude that counsel has adequately fulfilled his obligations under 

Anders. See United States v. Youla, 241 F.3d 296, 300 (3d Cir. 2001). In accordance 

 

1

The District Court exercised jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3231 and 3583(e)(3). We 

have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

2 Counsel filed an Anders brief relating to Elliott’s conviction on the underlying drug 

conviction at No. 12-2812. On April 17, 2013, a panel of this Court affirmed the 

judgment of conviction and granted counsel’s motion to withdraw.
3

with Anders, we have independently reviewed the record in this case and have found no 

meritorious issues for appeal.3 Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the District 

Court. We also grant counsel’s request to withdraw. Finally, we certify that the issues 

presented in the appeal lack legal merit and do not require counsel to file a petition for a 

writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. We will grant counsel’s motion 

to withdraw in a separate order.

 

3 We note that, consistent with Third Circuit L.A.R. 109.2(a), counsel served a copy of 

his Anders brief upon Elliott. Also, the Clerk’s Office notified Elliott of his right to file 

his own pro se brief. We have received no such submission from Elliott.