NO T P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TE D S TA TE S C OU RT OF AP PE AL S FO R T HE TH IRD C IRCU IT No. 09- 3938 UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA

v . DONALD LAMAR BURROUGHS, Appe l l ant On Ap peal from

the Unite d S tate s Dis tr ic t Cou rt f o r th e M id d le D istrict o f

P en n sylv an ia ( D. C. Cr i m i na l No. 1- 08- c r - 00435- 002) Di s tr i c t Judge : Hon. Syl vi aH. Ra m bo Su bm itte d P ursuant t o T hird Circ uit LAR34 .1(a )

June 22, 2010 BE FO RE : SMITH , FISHE R, and C OWEN , Cir cuit Judg es ( Fi l e d: Jul y

13, 2010) OP I NI ON COW EN, Ci r c ui t

Judge Dona l d La m ar

Burr oughs ha s a

ppe a l e d hi s s e nt e nc e and hi s c ouns e l ha s m ove d, pur s ua nt t o A n d ers v. C a lifo rn ia , 386 U.S. 73 8 (19 67 ), fo r per m is si on to withdraw as
co u n sel. We w ill af

f irm B u rro u g h s’ sen ten ce an dg ran t th e m o tio n o f co u n sel.2

I . BA CK GR OU ND Burr oughs pl e a de d gui l ty t o one c ount

of di s tr i but i on and pos s e s s i on wi th i nt e nt to dist ri bu te five gram s or m ore of cocaine bas e, in violat ion o f 2 1 U .S.C. §§ 8 41 (a )( 1), 84 1(b)(1)(A)( ii i) , and 18 U.S.C. § 2 . The PS R rec omm ended an adv is ory gu idel ines
rang e of 8 7-10 8 m on ths of im pris on m ent. Bu rr ou gh s fil ed ob ject ions and the Distri ct Co urt hel d a se ntenci ng hear ing. At the c on cl usion o f the heari ng , the Distri ct Co urt
sen ten cedB u rro u g h s to a term o f im p riso n m en t o f

f if ty m o n th s. In reach in g th is
s e nt e nc e , the Di s tr i c t

Court s us t a i ne d Bur

r oughs ’ obje c t i on t o atwo- l e ve l e nhanc e m e nt f o r p o ssessio n o f

a d an g ero u s w eap o n (U .S .S .G . § 2 D 1 .1 (b )(1 )), g ran tedB u rro u g h s’
r e que s t for “ s a fe ty va l ve ” pr ot e c t i on, gr ant e d adownwa r d va r i anc e ba s e d on the g o v ern m en t’s ack n o w led g m en t o f B u rro u g h s’ sub stan tial assistan ce as set f o rth in its 5K 1.1 lette r, and g ranted a dow nw ar d d eparture base d o n the cr ac k cocai ne-pow der
c o c a i n e d i s p ar i ty. I I . DI SCUSSI ON Burr oughs ’ c ouns e l pe t i t i ons thi s Court t o wi thdr aw a s a t t orne y

of r e c or d, ar gui ng that ther e are no no n-frivolou s i ss ues that c an be advanced on appeal . Cou nsel prov ided
a co p y o f h is b rief to B u rro u g h s an dw e g av e B u rro u g h s th irty d ay s to f ile a b rief o n h is b eh alf . B u rro u g h s h as n o t f

iledan y th in g w ith th is C o u rt. W e e nga ge i n atwo- s t e p i nqui ry whe n e va l ua t i ng an A n d ers br i e f. Fi r s t , we de t e rm i ne whe the r

c ouns e l thor oughl y

e xa m i ne d the r e c or d for

a ppe a l abl e i s s ue s and3

adequatel y

explai ned w hy

any such is sues ar e fri vo lous. Sec on d, we cond uct an i nde pe nde nt

r e vi e w of the r e c or d t o de t e rm i ne whe the r the r e ar e any

non- fr i vol ous issu es. Se e, e . g. , U

n ited Sta tes v. Y

o u la , 241 F.3d 29 6, 30 0 (3d Cir. 20 01 ). Co un se l
rev iew edth e reco rdan dco n clu d edth at th ere w ere n o ap p ealab le issu es w ith resp ect to the r e a s onabl e ne s s of the s e nt e nc e . I nde e d, c ouns e l not e d tha t Burr oughs pr e va i l e d on
e a c h of hi s obje c t i ons and r e que s t s wi th r e s pe c t t o s e nt e nc i ng, whi c h r e s ul t e d i n a s i gni fi c a nt l y

l owe r s e nt e nc e tha t

wa s be l ow the a dvi s ory

gui de l i ne s r ange . Li ke wi s e , our i nde pe nde nt

r e vi e w of the r e c or d i ndi c a t e s tha t the r e ar e no non- fr i vol ous i s s ue s for
a ppe a l
. The Di s tr i c t

Court di d not abus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n s e nt e nc i ng Burr oughs t o a below the gu idel ines se ntence . I I I . CONCLUSI ON W e wi l l a ffi rm

the judgm e nt

of Se pt e m

be r 30, 2009, and gr ant

the m ot i on for
c ou ns e l t o w i thdr aw.