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

1-18-2013 

# U S A v . K ev in B r o w n
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 . 12-1562

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 . Ke v in B r o w n " (2013). 2013 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 1360. 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_2013/13601 

### NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 12

- 1562

_____________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. KEVIN BROWN,

Appellant

_____________ On Appeal from the Unit ed States District Court for the District of New Jersey District Court No. 2

- 05

- cr - 00715

- 001 District Judge: The Honorable Esther Salas
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

January 14, 2013 Before: SMITH, CHAGARES, AND BARRY, Circuit Jud ges (Filed: January 18, 2013 )

_____________________ OPINION

_____________________ SMITH, Circuit Judge. Kevin Brown pleaded guilty in October of 2005 to distribution and possession with intent to distribute cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. §2



### 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B). The District Court sentenced him to a seventy

- five month term of imprisonment, followed by a four year period of supervised release. In December of 20 1 1, while on supervised release, Brown assaulted his girlfriend during a domestic dispute and broke the windows of her vehicle. Shortly thereafter, the United States Probation Office filed a report with the Court alleging four violations of supervised release. During a hearing before the District Court on February 15 , 2012, Brown pleaded guilty to the single violation based on the assault of his girlfriend , which also mentioned that he had damaged her vehicle

. The Court found that Brown knowingly and voluntarily pleaded guilty and accepted his plea. At th at junctu re, the proceeding focused on sentencing. Brown’s counsel urged the Court to impose a sentence below the advisory guideline range of eight to fourteen months of imprisonment . Brown exercised his right of allocution and tried to explain his actions. The Court acknowledged his explanation, but voiced concerns about his “issues with women” and his need “to learn to control” himself. In applying the various factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the Court noted that Brown had “ made a face ” during an on t he record discussion concerning how he broke the windows of the vehicle . The Court acknowledged t hat Brown had a difficult childhood , but found th is personal history did not justify h is equally troubling history of violence with women

. Brown responded by uttering a3



### profanity

. The Court sentenced him to fourteen months of imprisonment and forty

six months of supervised release. Brown filed a timely appeal. 1 

### His counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), representing tha t 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 because it complied with the requirements of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. The record of the revocation hearing, according to counsel , demonstrated that there was a factual basis for Brown’s guilty plea . In light of the Court ’s finding that Brown knowingly and voluntarily pleaded guilty, counsel asserted there was no ground on which to challenge the validity of the guilty plea. Nor was there any basis, i n counsel’s view, to question the procedural or substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed. Counsel pointed out that
t he guideline rang e was correctly calculated . Furthermore, t he District Court fully considered the § 3553 (a) sentencing factors and explained its reasons for imposing the sentence at the top of the guideline range.
W e conclude that counsel has adequately fulfilled his o bligations under Anders

. See U

nited States v. Youla , 241 F.3d 296, 300 (3d Cir. 2001). Our

1 

### The District Court exercised jurisdic tion 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. § 1291.4



### independent review of the record fails to reveal any nonfrivolous issue for appeal. 2 

### Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court. We grant

co unsel’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.

2 

### We note that, consistent with Third Circuit L.A.R. 109.2(a), counsel served a copy of his Anders brief upon Brown. Also, t he Clerk’s Offi ce notified Brown of his right to file his own pro se brief. We have received no such submission from Brown

.