NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

____________ No s . 18

- 1412 & 20

- 1 502

____________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. WAYNE JOSEPH SANDERS, JR. , Appellant

____________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania ( D.C. No. 1

- 1 5

- cr - 002 65

- 001 ) District Judge : Honorable Yvette Kane

____________ Submitted on November 9, 2020
Before: HARDIMAN , GREENBERG, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges

. (Filed: Nove mber 12, 2020 )

___________

OPINION *

____________

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.

### 2 HARDIMAN , C ircuit Judge

. Wayne Sanders, Jr. appeals his counterfeiting conviction and sentence

. H is court

appointed counsel filed a brief contending no nonfrivolous issues exist on appeal and a motion seek ing to withdraw as counsel

. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967); 3d Cir. L.A.R. 109.2(a) (2011)

. We will grant counsel’s motion and affirm the District
Court’s judgment.
I For several months beginning in December 2014 , Sanders passed counterfeit United States Federal Reserve notes at Walmart stores in Pennsylvania. He was indicted on eight counts, all charging violations of 18 U.S.C. § 472

. Sanders entered an open guilty plea to each count

. Exercising jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231 , t he District Court accepted his plea s . Sanders was sentenced to 24 months ’ incarceration for each of the eight counts against him, to be served concurrently. To arrive at that sentence, the District Court first
calculat ed Sander s ’s sentencing guideline s range, which was 18 to 24 months based on an offense level 15 and a criminal history category I

. The District Court declined to grant the typical offense level reduction for acceptance of responsibility under the United States Sentencing Guidelines (USSG) § 3E1.1

. Sanders’s counsel objected to that decision , but

t he District Court overruled the objection , citing Sanders’s bail violations and post

indictment criminal conduc t . Sanders also objected to the recommended $55,500
restitution award , suggesting $10,880 as the proper amount

. T he District Court deferred

### 3 order ing restitution , consider ed the parties’ subsequent brief ing , and ultimately ordered $10,060 in restitution

. After filing the notice of appeal , Sanders’s counsel fil ed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw , which w ere served on Sanders

. The Government filed its brief agreeing there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal

. Sanders did not file a pro se brief

. II We review this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a ) . W e consider whether counsel’s brief reflect s that he has conscientiously and “thoroughly examined the record in search of appealable issues , ” United States v. Youla , 241 F.3d 296, 300 (3d Cir. 2001) , and inform s the court whether anything in the record “might arguably support the appeal , ” Anders , 386 U.S. at 744. I f th e re are no nonfriv o lous bases for appeal , we will grant counsel’s Anders motion, and dispose of the appeal. 3d Cir. L.A.R. 109.2(a) (2011)

. The Anders brief and the Government’s response identify three potential issues : the court’s jurisdiction , the validity of Sanders’s guilty plea s , and the constitutionality of his sentence

. None is nonfrivolous

. N o jurisdictional defect exists here. Sanders was charged with a federal criminal offense, so t he District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231

. Nor does o ur review of the record reveal any error regarding Sanders’s guilty plea.
T he District Court ensure d that the plea was knowing , intelligent, and voluntary

. S ee

### 4 Bradshaw v. Stumpf , 545 U.S. 175, 183 (2005)

. And there is no nonfrivolous challenge based on Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Finally, t he Anders brief explains why there is no nonfrivolous basis to challenge Sanders’s sentenc e . Counsel identifies two potential challenges

— whether the District Court erred by denying Sanders a n acceptance of responsibility reduction and whether the restitution order was erroneous . Neither is non frivolous. The District Court was well within its discr etion to deny the reduction based on Sanders’s post

- indictment conduct

. S ee United States v. Ceccarani , 98 F.3d 126, 130 (3d Cir. 1996) ; USSG § 3E1.1 cmt. n . 1

. And a challenge to the final restitution amount is a nonstarter because the District Court
based its determination on a method and amount offered by Sanders in his supplemental briefing on restitution

. The record indicates that the District Court complied with the requirements of Rule 32 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Proced ure , acted in accord with the process outlined in United States v. Gunter , 462 F.3d 237, 247 (3d Cir. 2006), and imposed a reasonable sentence within the G uideline s range. In sum, c ounsel’s brief satisfies the Anders requirements and our independent review of the record reveals no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. So we will grant counsel’s
Anders motion to withdraw , and we will affirm the District Court’s judgment

.