Opinion ID: 2642868
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sufficiency of the Anders Brief

Text: Turning first to whether counsel has fulfilled the rule‟s requirements, the Court examines the brief to determine if it: (1) shows that counsel has thoroughly examined the record in search of appealable issues, id. at 300; (2) identifies any issues arguably 1 The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The government suggests that we lack jurisdiction to review the reasonableness of Olson‟s wire fraud sentence. See Appellee Br. 14 (“Section 3742(c) of Title 18 provides that in cases where the defendant agrees to a specific sentence under Rule 11(c)(1)(C), a defendant may not file a notice of appeal unless the sentence imposed is greater than the sentence set forth in such agreement.”) Section 3742(c) precludes appeals of sentences imposed pursuant to Rule 11(c)(1)(C) that are brought based on paragraphs (3) and (4) of Section 3742(a). The same cannot be said of an appeal brought under § 3742(a)(1). Section 3742(a)(1) allows appeals of sentences “imposed in violation of law.” Post-Booker, “an unreasonable sentence is „imposed in violation of law‟ under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(1).” United States v. Cooper, 437 F.3d 324, 327 (3d Cir. 2006), abrogated on other grounds by Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007). We therefore have jurisdiction to review the reasonableness of Olson‟s wire fraud sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(1). 4 supporting the appeal even though the appeal was wholly frivolous, Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259, 285 (2000); and (3) explains why the issues are frivolous, United States v. Marvin, 211 F.3d 778, 780-81 (3d Cir. 2000). All three elements are satisfied here. First, counsel‟s brief demonstrates a thorough examination of the record, from jurisdiction to sentencing. Second, the brief identifies and appraises potential issues on appeal concerning the District Court‟s jurisdiction, the voluntariness of Olson‟s guilty plea, the sufficiency of the evidence regarding the supervised release violation, and the reasonableness of the sentence. Third, as discussed further below, counsel‟s brief accurately and eloquently explains why these issues are frivolous in light of the governing law. For these reasons, counsel‟s brief is sufficient, and we therefore proceed in our review of the issues based on the content of the Anders brief itself.