NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 18

- 2659

_____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

NASIR THOMPAS,

Appellant

_____________

O n Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

District Court No. 2

- 1 7

- cr

- 00 449

- 002

District Judge: The Honorable Gerald J. Pappert

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

S e ptember 26, 2019

Before: SMITH, Chief Judge

, McKEE and PHIPPS

, Circuit Judges

(Filed: October 18, 2019 )

_____________________

OPINION 

_____________________

SMITH, Chief Judge

.

Nas i r Thompas appeals his judgment of conviction and sentence

. His2

counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

asserting that no nonfrivolous issues exist for appeal

, t o g e t h e r w i t h a m o t i o n b y

c o u n s e l to withdraw. For the fo l lowing reasons , we wi l l grant counsel’s motion

and affirm the j u d g m e n t

.

I.

B a s e d u p o n a l l e g a t i o n s t h a t Thompas participat e d in a June 6, 2017 robbery

of a 7

- Eleven and a June 12, 2017 robbery of a Godfrey Food Mart

, a s u p e r s e d i n g

i n d i c t m e n t c harged h im w i th two counts of Hobbs Act robbery, 18 U.S.C.

§ 1951(a), and two counts of brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence, 18

U.S.C. § 924(c). Thompas pleaded not guilty and proceeded to a three

- day jury

trial. A t t r i a l

, t h e p r o s e c u t i o n i n t r o d u c e d

, i n t e r a l i a : ( 1 ) v i d e o s u r v e i l l a n c e f o o t a g e

o f t h e r o b b e r i e s ; ( 2 ) t e s t i m o n y f r o m a c o

- d e f

e n d a n t w h o c o o p e r a t e d with the

p r o s e c u t i o n a n d i m

p l i c a t e d T h o m

p a s ; ( 3 ) e x p e r t t e s t i m o n y c o n c e r n i n g T h o m p a s ’ s

f i n g e r p r i n t s

, w h i c h w e r e r e c o v e r e d f r o m o n e o f t h e c r i m e s c e n e s ; ( 4 ) t e s t i m o n y

f r o m T h o m

p a s ’ s s t e p f

a t h e r t h a t t h e g u n u s e d d u r i n g t h e r o b b e r i e s h a d b e e n s t o l e n

f r o m h i m ; a n d ( 5 ) T h o m

p a s ’ s v i d e o t a p e d c on f

e s s i o n s t o h a v i n g c o m m i t t e d b o t h

r o b b e r i e s

. A t t h e c o n c l u s i o n o f t r i a l

, t he jury f o u n d Thompas g u i l t y o f all fou r

charges

.

 This dispos ition is not an opini on of th e full court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does

not constitute binding precedent.3

At sentencing

, T h o m

p a s d i d n o t o b

j e c t t o t h e p r e s e n t e n c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n

r e p o r t o r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s c a l c u l a t i o n o f t h e a p p l i c a b l e G u i d e l i n e s r a n g e

.

T h o m p a s m o v e d f

o r a d o w n w a r d v a r i a n c e

, w h i c h t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e n i e d

. A f t e r

c o n s i d e r i n g the f

actors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3 553(a)

, t he District Court imposed

s e n t e n c e s o f concurrent terms of 57 months for the two Hobbs Act charges

, and

consecutive terms of 8 4 months and 300 months for the two fire arm charges , for a

total ter m o f 441 m onths of i mprisonment

, to be followed by a five

- year term of

supervised release

.

Thompas timely filed a pro se notice of appeal

. His counsel filed an Anders

brief and a motion to be relieved from the rep resentation. Although T h o m p a s

s ought a n d w a s g r a n t e d additi onal time in which to f i l e a p r o s e b r i e f i n s u p p o r t o f

h i s a p p e a l

, h e did not f

i l e s u c h a b r i e f

.

II. 1

I n Anders v. California

, 386 U.S. at 744

, t he Supreme Court held that if

,

after conscientious examination

, counsel finds a m a tter to be wholly frivolous,

counsel should advise t h e C o u r t and request permission to withdraw from the

representation. I n s u c h a c a s e

, w e conduct a plen ary review t o determin e :

(1) whether counsel adequately fulfilled the requirements of 3d Cir. L.A. R.

1 The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have

j ur isd iction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 129 1

.4

109.2(a ), including filing a sufficient motion to withdraw a nd supporting brief ; and

(2) whether an independent review of the record reveals any non

- frivolous issues.

Simon v. Gov’t of Virgin Islands , 679 F.3d 109, 114

– 1 5 (3d Cir. 2012). “Where

th e A nde rs b rief initially appears ad equate on its face, the prop er course is for the

appellate court to be guided in reviewing the record by the Anders brief itself.”

U n i t e d S t a t e s v

. Y

o u l a

, 2 4 1 F

. 3 d 2 9 6

, 301 ( 3 d C i r

. 2 0 0 1 ) (citation and internal

quotation m a r k s o mitted )

. A c omplete scouri ng of the record is n o t r e q u i r e d

. I d

.

I f w e j u d g e a n appeal to be without ar guable merit

, w e must grant trial counsel’s

motion and dispose of the appeal without appointing new counsel. 3d Cir. L.A.R.

109.2(a).

III.

C o u n s e l o b s e r v e s t h a t o n e p o t e n t i a l a p p e a l i s s u e c o u l d c o n c e r n T h o m p a s ’ s

v i d e o t a p e d c o n f

e s s i o n s

. I n h i s A n d e r

s b r i e f

, c o u n s e l s t a t e s t h a t h e d e c l i n e d t o

m o v e t o s u p p r e s s t h e c o n f e s s i o n s b e c a u s e T h o m

p a s e x e c u t e d M

i r a n d a w a i v e r s

b e f o r e e a c h c o n f

e s s i o n a n d t h e r e w a s n o e v i d e n c e o f c o e r c i o n

. C o u n s e l f u r t h e r

o b s e r v e s t h a t

, e v e n i f t h e c o n f e s s i o n s h a d n o t b e e n a d m i t t e d a t t r i a l

, t h e e v i d e n c e

o f g u i l t w a s o v e r w h e l m i n g

. A s t o T h o m p a s ’ s s e n t e n c e

, c o u n s e l o b s e r v e s t h a t t h e r e

a r e n o a p p e a l a

b l e i s s u e s b e c a u s e t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t c o r r e c t l y c a l c u l a t e d t h e

a d v i s o r y G u i d e l i n e s r a n g e a n d e x a m i n e d t h e § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f a c t o r s

, a n d t h e s e n t e n c e

i m p o s e d w a s b o t h p r o c e d u r a l l y a n d s u b s t a n t i v e l y r e a s o n a b l e

.5

T h e A n d e r s b r i e f a d e q u a t e l y e x p l a i n s w h y t h e r e a r e n o n o n f r i v o l o u s i s s u e s

f o r appeal

. S e e Y

o u l a

, 2 4 1 F

. 3 d a t 3 0 0

. O u r i n d e p e n d e n t r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d

l e a d s u s t o t h e s a m e c o n c l u s i o n

.

IV.

W e are satisfied that Counsel has f u l f i l l e d h i s obligation under Anders a n d

3d Cir. L.A.R. 109.2(a)

, a n d o ur independent review of the record h a s i d e n t i f i e d no

nonfrivol ou s ground fo r appeal. I f , as here, an appeal is judg ed to be without

arguable merit , this Court must grant trial counsel’s motion and dispose of the

appeal without appointing new counsel. 3d Cir. L.A.R. 109.2(a). W e t h e r e f o r e

will gra nt coun sel’ s moti on to withdr aw and affirm the j u d g m e n t

.