2013 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

4-30-2013 

# U S A v . T om E l liott , III

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 ock e t N o . 12-2892

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2013

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou 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 a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2013 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t 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 v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" U SA v . T om El l iott , I I I " (2013). 2013 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 909. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_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### NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 L AR 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 o n 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 a nd 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 C ourt’s finding that Elliot knowingly and voluntarily pleaded g uilty to the underlying drug charges , counsel assert s 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 proced ural 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 ra nge. We see no error, procedural or substantive, in the District Court’s
sentence. We therefore conclude that counsel has adequately fulfilled his obl igations 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 br ief 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 judg ment 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 Co urt. 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.