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
10-24-2003 

# U SA v . H e r re r a 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 . 02-1628

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 . vi 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 sity 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 sity 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 . vi l l a no va . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" U SA v . H e r r e r a" (2003). 2003 D e cisio n s . P ape r 189. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003/189NOT PRE CEDENT IAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT
NO. 02-1628
UNITED S TATES OF AMERI CA

v. FLOR HE RRERA, Appellant

On A ppeal Fro m the U nited States D istrict Court For the East ern District of Pennsy lvania (D.C. Crim. Action No. 01-cr -00030-3) District Judge: H onorab le Harve y Bartle, III
Submitte d Pursuant to Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

October 17, 2003
BE FO RE : SL OV ITE R, R OT H a nd S TA PL ET ON , Circuit Judges (Opinion Fi led: Oct ober 24, 2003)

OPINI ON OF THE COURT1 Without saying whether Herrera wished t o rais e the i ssue, or whether t here is any ba si s f orit , c oun se l n ot edth at he was tria l c oun se l and c oul d no t rai se hi s o wn

2 ST AP LE TO N, Circuit

Judge : Appellant

Flor Herre ra pled gui lty to four dr

ug offenses. He was given a concurrent

sentence on all c ounts of 96 months of incar cerat ion and si x year s of supervi sed rel ease.

Following t

he fil ing of the notice of appeal, defense counselfile d a motion to w ithdraw as co unse l and a brief in supp ort of th is mo tion pu rsuan t to the d ecision in And ers v. C aliforn ia , 386 U.S. 738 ( 1967). Through t hese submiss ions, we are advise d that “there is no no n-frivolous issue that can be raised on [H errera’s] behalf. . . .” Herrera
wa s prov ided w ith a co py of the mo tion an d the b rief an d w as giv en an opp ortun ity to file
a pro se br ief . H e d id no t av ail hi m se lf o f th is o pp or tu ni ty.

In accordance with the mandate est ablis hed in Anders , we have conducte d an ind epen dent e xam ination of the record befo re us in orde r to dete rmine wh ether it presents any non -frivolous issue. B ecause w e conclud e that it does not, w e will affirm the jud gm ent of

the D istrict Co urt. W e w ill also gra nt defense coun sel’s m otion to wit hdraw. In his Anders brief, counsel i dentif ies t hree is sues as arguably

nonfrivol ous: (1) whether the re was insuf fici ent evi dence to suppor t the c onvicti on; (2) whether appel lant’ s plea was knowing, intel ligent , and voluntary ; and (3) whether the sentence w as improp er. 1ineffective ness a s a ba sis for a ppea l. 3 On the basis of ou r review, w e are satisfied that all three of th ese issues are withou t merit. The go vernm ent’s evidenc e established b eyond perad venture that H errera
wa s a m emb er of a cons piracy tha t sold b ulk q uantities of d rugs f rom July of 2 000 until Janu ary of 20 01. T hat ev idenc e con sisted o f tape s and purc hase s by und ercov er age nts and cooperat ing witnes ses. Also, a s earch conduct ed pursuant to a val id warrant

resul ted in the s eizure of 13.5 grams of he roin and 119. 4 grams of crac k cocaine, which could be linked to app ellant.

The transc ript of th e plea hearin g sho ws th at the C ourt m eticulo usly reviewed with the defendant his ri ghts, the nat

ure and ext ent of the right s that he was waiving, his satisfaction with hi s att orney , the potenti al penal ties he faced, t he evidence the go vern men t had a gains t him, a nd th e natu re of th e sen tencin g gu ideline calcu lations in hi s c as e. H er re ra ’s p lea w as cle ar ly k no w in g, i nt ell ig en t, a nd vo lu nt ar y.

With respec t to s entenci ng, the probati on office adopt ed the stipulations of the parties, and the Court adopted the findi ngs of the pr obation of fice. The calcul ation of the Guidel ines r ange was in accordance with t hose guidel ines. The Court grant ed the government’s motions t o depart f rom the st atutor

y minimum sentence and depar ted downward from the Sentencing Guideline s. The Dist rict Court imposed a s entence t hat was 72 months less than the minimum of the appl icabl e range and was two years less t han the mandator

y minimum sentence. Ther e thus i s no non-frivolous basi s to argue that the4

senten ce w as illega l.

The judg men t of the Distric t Cou rt will be affirm ed. C oun sel’s m otion to withdraw willbe grante d.5

TO THE C LERK:

Please fi le the foregoing Not Pr ecedenti al Opinion.

/s/ Walter K. St aplet on

____________________________ Circuit Judge