2003 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 12-9-2003 

# U S A v . Ar r o yo -C r uz 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 . 03-2268

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_2003

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 2003 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 . Ar r o yo -C r uz " (2003). 2003 D e cisio n s . P ape r 67. 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_2003/67* The Ho nora ble F rank J. M agill, Se nior C ircuit Jud ge, U nited S tates C ourt o f A ppea ls

for the E igh th C ircu it, sittin g by d esig natio n. NOT PRECEDE NTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT


### No. 03-2268
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. PRUDENCI O ARROYO- CRUZ, Appellant
APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DIST RICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY D.C. Crim. No. 03- cr-00168 Distric t Judg e: Th e H ono rable J erom e B. S iman dle
Submitte d Under Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

November 21, 2003
Before: RENDELL, BARRY, an d MAGILL, * Circuit Judges (Opinion Fi led: December 9, 2003)

OPI NION2

BA RR Y, Circuit

Judge On September 17, 2002, Prudencio Arr oyo- Cruz was sentence d to eight months of impris onment and two y ears of s upervis ed rele ase by the U.S. Dis tri ct Court f or the Midd le Dis tric t o f Pe nns y lv ani a af te r h is con vi ct io n fo r e sc ape , i n vi ol at io n of 18 U. S. C. § 751, and theft of government propert y, in viol ation of

18 U.S.C. § 641. Arroyo- Cruz was releas ed from custody on December 6, 2002, and began servi ng his t erm of supervi sed rel ease. On March 24, 2003, the Probation Department file d a Petit

ion for Warrant or Summons Under Supervi sion agai nst hi m. The peti tion al leged t hat he committed t

he foll owing four viol ations of his supe rvise d relea se: ( 1) he was arr ested on January30, 2003 and char ged with sexualassaul t and endangering the wel fare of a chi ld; (2) he fai led to not

ifyhis probation off

icer wit hin 72 hours of

being arrested on t

he new charges; (3) he fai led to s ubmit t o drug tr eatment as ordered; and (4) he tested pos iti ve three tim es fo r hero in and coca ine, an d on e time for P CP . A v iolation hearin g w as he ld and Ar royo- Cru z ple d gu ilty to thr ee G rad e C vio latio ns – Vio latio n N um ber s 2, 3 , and 4. The Distri ct Court revoked his term of supervi sed rel ease and sentenced him to ei ghteen
mo nths’ in carce ration, w hich e xcee ded th e G uidelin es’ po licy stateme nt rang e of f ive to eleven months. No additional term of supervised release to be served upon his releas e fro m im priso nm ent w as im pos ed. A timelynoticeof appeal was fi led. Defense counsel s ubsequentl y fi led a bri ef pursuant to An ders v . Califo rnia , 386 U.S. 738 ( 1967), and moved t o withdraw from the3

case becaus e therewere no non-fri volous i ssues for appeal. Arroyo- Cruz, for hi s part , has file d a pro se Informal Bri ef, i n which he contends that although he onl y pl ed guilt y t o the Grade C violations a lleged in V iolation Nu mbers 2 , 3, and 4, the D istrict Court improperl y se ntenced hi m for the Grade A viol ation allege d in Violat ion Number 1. The Distri ct Court ha d juri sdiction pursuant to 18 U.S. C. § 3583(e), and appell ate j urisdi ction is prope r in t

his Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. After c areful review, we wil l grant
coun sel’s m otion to with draw and a ffirm the jud gm ent of the D istrict Co urt. Und er And ers , if defense co unsel finds a n appe al “to be w holly frivolous, after a
cons cientio us ex amin ation o f it, he sh ould so ad vise the cour t and re ques t perm ission to withdraw.” And ers , 386 U.S. at 744. Counsel ’s reque st must “be accompanied bya brief referring to anything i n the rec ord that might arguably support t he appeal. ” Id. When an And ers brief i s submitted, we must inquire: “(1) whether counseladequatel y ful fill ed the rule’ s requi rements; and (2) whether an independent

review of the record presents any nonfrivol ous iss ues.” Un ited Sta tes v. Y oula , 241 F.3d 296, 300 (3d Cir. 2001) (ci tati ons omitt ed). Defense counsel’ s obli gations “when prepari ng an And ers brief a re (1) to satisfy the c ourt tha t coun sel has thoro ugh ly exam ined th e reco rd in se arch o f app ealab le issues , and (2) to explain why the issue s are frivolous .” Id. If the c ourt fi nds that the appeal i s whollyfrivol ous, “i t may gr ant counsel ’s reque st t o withdraw and dis miss the appeal i nsofar as federalrequirements areconcerned, or proceed to a decisi on on the merits, if state law so req uires. O n the o ther ha nd, if it fin ds an y of the le gal po ints1 Th e tr an sc rip t re fle cts th e f ol lo w in g c ol lo qu y: 1 2 CO UR T: So , by plead ing g uilty, you’re takin g a risk that your s enten ce w ill 3 not be withi n the fi ve to 11 month sugges ted range , but t hat it could be 4 greate r than 11 months all t he way up to 24 months. Do you unde rstand 5 that? 6 7 DE FEN DA NT : Yes, sir. (App . at 26-27.) 8 4 arguable on their

merits (and therefore not frivol ous) it

must, prior t o decisi on, affor d the indigent the ass ist ance of counselto argue t he appeal. ” And ers , 386 U.S . at 74 4. Here, defens e counsel’ s brie f address ed in det ail t he violation hearing, at which Arroyo- Cruz pled gui lty to Grade C viol ations , as wellas his s entenci ng by the District Court. We are s atis fied that counselthoroughl y exami ned the re cord and expl ained why any issue wo uld be frivo lous. The p lea colloquy reveals that b efore the D istrict Court accepted t

he guilt y pl ea, Arroy o-Cruz unders tood his consti tuti onal ri ghts, the nature of the charge s against him , the terms of the p lea agreem ent, and that he f aced a statutory maximum sentence of 24 months ’ impri sonment. Spec ific ally , the Distri ct Court a dvised him that it was not

bound by the Guideli nes, which recommended a sentence be tween five and eleven months for a Grade C viol ation. 1 The Co urt also establish ed the factu al basis for the plea. T hus, th e reco rd de mo nstrates that A rroyo-C ruz k now ingly and volu ntarily ente red a ple a of gui lty, and the C our t did not err in acc eptin g th e ple a. Nor did the Dis tri ct Court e rr i n imposing t he sentenc e it di d. By s entenci ng Arro yo-Cru z to eig hteen mo nths o f imp risonm ent, the D istrict Co urt exc eede d the f ive to5

eleven month r ange of U.S.S. G. § 7B1.4(a) be cause: ( 1) alt hough Arroyo- Cruz recei ved lenien cy from the sen tencin g jud ge on the orig inal of fens e, he h ad fa iled to re habilitate hims elf; an d (2) h e “m ade n o attem pt w hatso ever” to com ply with th e term s of h is supervised release. (App . at 52-53.) The Dis tric t C our

t a ct ed wel l wi th init s d is cr etio n. The ra ngese t f or thin U. S. S. G. § 7B 1.4 i s m erely a dvi sory. Schwegel , 126 F .3d at 5 52. M oreo ver, the transc ript refle cts that t he District Court

careful lyexamined Arroy o-Cruz’s pa st and i mposed a sentenc e that
wo uld b oth p unish and r ehab ilitate him ; indee d, the C ourt co uld h ave, b ut did n ot, sentence him up to the stat utorymaximum of 24 m ont hs. Arroyo- Cruz argues i n his Inf ormal Brie f that

even though the plea agreement prov ided f or the d ismissa l of his Gra de A violatio n in retu rn fo r his ad missio n of guilt to the Grade C viol ations , the Distri ct Court i mproperly sentence d him for theGrade A violat ion. We dis agree. At sentenci ng, the Distri ct Court c learl y st ated that it was focusing on Viol ations Numbers 2, 3, and 4, which were Grade C violat ions. (App. at 41.) Th ere a re n o no n-f rivo lou s issu es th at ha ve b een iden tified or p rese nted for app eal. Accordingly , we will grant def ense counsel ’s reque st t o withdraw and willaffirm the jud gm ent o f the Dis trict C our t.6

TO THE CLERK OF THE CO URT: Kindlyfilethe fore going Opinion.
/s/ M ar yan ne Tr um p B ar ry Circuit Judge