NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

________________ No. 18

- 1180

________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. KANYA TIRADO , Appellant

________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of the Virgin Islands (District Court No. 3

- 1 6

- cr
- 000 39

- 00 9) District Judge: Hon. Curtis V. Gomez Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) December 10 , 201 9
Before: SMITH , Chief Judge , McKEE and SHWARTZ , Circuit Judges (Opinion Filed: January 14, 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 McKEE, Circuit Judge

. A jury convicted Kanya Tirado of numerous charges arising from her involvement
in an organized effort to smuggle cocaine past the TSA checkpoint at Cyril E. King Airport and transport it to the mainland United States for distribution

. S ubstantial
evidence was introduced at trial , including Tirado’s confession that law enforcement
officials recorded. She now appeal s that conviction, but her counsel has filed an Anders
brief and asked to withdraw based upon her examination of the record . Because we agree with counsel that there are no non
- frivolous issues for appeal, we will affirm the judgment of conviction and sen tence and allow counsel to withdraw.
I.
R eviewing an Anders 1 motion, we must first d etermine “whether counsel[’s ] [brief] adequately fulfill[s] [Third Circuit Local Appellate Rule 109.2(a)’s] requirements ”
and then ask “ whether an independent review of the record presents any nonfrivolous
issues.” 2 Although we conduct our own review of the record, 3 an Anders b rief must
nevertheless “(1)

. . . satisfy the court that counsel has thoroughly examine d the record in
search of appealable issues, and (2) explain why the issues are frivolous.” 4 Appellant has a right to file a pro se brief upon being informed of counsel’s motion to withdraw , 5 but
Tirado has not done so here.

1 See Anders v California , 386 U.S. 73 8 (1967). 2 United States v. Youla , 241 F.3d 296, 300 (3d Cir. 2001). 3 Simon v. Gov’t of V.I. , 679 F.3d 109, 114 (3d Cir. 2012). 4 241 F.3d at 300. 5 Id.3 After reviewing the record, we are satisfied that counsel has adequately reviewed
the facts a nd considered any legal arguments that may be relevant to Tirado’s appeal.
Counsel has concluded that there are no non

- frivolous issues for appeal, and we agree

. The evidence offered of Tirado’s guilt was both voluminous and uncontradicted ; it
included her own confession. Moreover, there is nothing to suggest that her confession was anything other than knowing and voluntary , nor is there any suggestion that it wa s obtained in violation of Tirado’s constitutional rights

. We realize that the government did present evidence arising from the conspiracy
after Tirado was involved, but that evidence was indicative of the procedure followed by the conspirators during h er involvement . Accordingly, it was properly admitted. Even assuming arguendo that it was inadmissible, given the quality and quantity of admissible evidence of Tirado’s guilt, any such error was certainly harmless. Thus, the Anders b rief
satisf ies Rule 109.2(a) and we can identify no grounds that support challenging Tirado’s conviction, or her 120

- month sentence of imprisonment.
II.
For the reasons stated above, we will grant counsel’s M ot ion to W ithdraw and
affirm the District C ourt’s judgment of sentence.