Case Name: UNITED STATES of America; v. Daniel RIVERA, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-04-05
Citations: 125 F. App'x 451
Docket Number: No. 03-3097
Parties: UNITED STATES of America; v. Daniel RIVERA, Appellant.
Judges: Before SCIRICA, Chief Judge, FISHER and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 125
Pages: 451–452

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America; v. Daniel RIVERA, Appellant.
No. 03-3097.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) Oct. 25, 2004.
Decided April 5, 2005.
Anne W. Chain, Office of United States Attorney, Philadelphia, PA, for United States of America.
William T. Lawson, III, Philadelphia, PA, for Appellant.
Before SCIRICA, Chief Judge, FISHER and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
FISHER, Circuit Judge.
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), appointed counsel for the Appellant Daniel Rivera originally filed a motion to withdraw from representation and an Anders brief, concluding, inter alia, that the sentence imposed on Appellant by the District Court was legal. The appeal was held C.A.V. pending United States v. Booker, — U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), and Appellant's counsel subsequently informed us by letter dated February 22, 2005, that Appellant now challenges his sentence under Booker. We interpret this letter to withdraw counsel's earlier filed motion to withdraw from representation, and accordingly do not address whether the Anders brief previously submitted met the Anders standard.
Having determined that the sentencing issues Appellant raises are best determined by the District Court in the first instance, we will vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing in accordance with Booker.
. We note, however, some dissatisfaction with the fact that the Anders brief failed to even acknowledge the U.S.S.G § 3B1.2 issue, which wás clearly important at sentencing and which formed the basis for the informal brief submitted by Appellant after the Anders brief was filed.