2002 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

2-5-2002

USA v. Levi

Precedential or Non-Precedential:

Docket 1-2332

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002

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 2002 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. Levi" (2002). 2002 Decisions. Paper 103.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002/103
 NOT PRECEDENTIAL 

 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

 FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

 

 Nos. 01-2332, 01-2333, 01-2334, 01-2335 & 01- 2336 

 

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 v. 

 CRAIG ALAN LEVI 

 Craig A. Levi, 

 Appellant 

 

 On Appeal From The United States District Court 

 For the Middle District of Pennsylvania 

 (D.C. Crim. Nos. 00-cr-00128, 00-cr-00174, 

 00-cr-00253, 00-cr-00266, 01-cr-00012) 

 District Judge: Honorable James F. McClure, Jr. 

 

 Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) 

 January 24, 2002 

 BEFORE: NYGAARD and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges, 

 and SLEET*, District Judge 

 (Filed February 5, 2002) 

 

__________________________________ 

* Honorable Gregory M. Sleet, United States District Judge for the 

District of Delaware, 

 sitting by designation. 

 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT 

 

STAPLETON, Circuit Judge: 

 Appellant Craig A. Levi pled guilty to wire fraud, aiding and 

abetting wire fraud, 
use of false identification to commit wire and mail fraud, interstate 

transportation of 

stolen property, and wire fraud while on release. 

 After filing a timely appeal, defense counsel filed a motion to 

withdraw as counsel 

and a brief in support of this motion pursuant to Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 

(1967). Defense counsel determined after a conscientious review of the 

record that "there 

are no non-frivolous issues for review." 

 In accordance with the mandate of Anders, we have performed an 

independent 

review of the record to determine whether it presents any non-frivolous 

issues that would 

justify review. Because we conclude that it does not, we will affirm the 

judgment of the 

District Court and grant defense's counsel motion to withdraw. 

 Counsel identified one arguable non-frivolous issue for review in his 

brief: 

whether the District Court abused its discretion by departing only one 

level downward in 

response to appellant's motion to depart on the ground that appellant's 

crimes were 

committed while he was suffering from a significantly reduced mental 

capacity. We lack 

jurisdiction to review an exercise of discretion by a District Court in 

granting or denying 

a departure. United States v. Denardi, 892 F.2d 269 (3d Cir. 1980). 

 The appeal will be dismissed for want of jurisdiction insofar as it 

asks us to review 

the failure to grant a greater departure. The judgment of the District 

Court will be 

affirmed and counsel's motion to withdraw will be granted. Further, 

pursuant to L.A.R. 

109.2(b), we find that "the issues presented in the appeal lack legal 

merit for purposes of 

counsel filing a petition for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court."
 

TO THE CLERK: 

 Please file the foregoing Memorandum Opinion. 

 /s/ Walter K. Stapleton 

 Circuit Judge