United States v. Carlos Almonte, 3rd Cir. (2014)
United States v. Carlos Almonte, 3rd Cir. (2014)
At Almontes sentencing hearing, which was held on April 15, 2013, the District
Court accepted the parties stipulations and held that Almontes total offense level was 42
and his criminal history category was VI, yielding a Guidelines range of 360 months to
life imprisonment. After considering the factors under 18 U.S.C. 3553(a), including
Almontes young age and history of mental illness, the District Court varied downward
and imposed a sentence of 240 months of imprisonment, plus a life term of supervised
release and a $100.00 special assessment. Almonte moved, inter alia, for reconsideration
of the sentence.1 The District Court denied his motion and this appeal followed.
II.2
Almontes counsel moves to withdraw as attorney of record, arguing that there are
no nonfrivolous issues to present on appeal. Almonte was given thirty days to file a brief
on his own behalf. He declined to do so. The Government has submitted a brief in
response to defense counsels Anders brief and supports counsels petition.
Counsel may move to withdraw from representation if, upon review of the
district court record, he or she is persuaded that the appeal presents no issue of even
arguable merit. 3d Cir. L.A.R. 109.2(a); see also Anders, 386 U.S. at 744 ([I]f counsel
finds his case to be wholly frivolous, after a conscientious examination of it, he should so
advise the court and request permission to withdraw.). Our inquiry when counsel
Almontes motion was based on the fact that, during the sentencing hearing, there was a
terrorist bombing at the Boston marathon (the Government was made aware of the
bombing but he was not), and the court imposed its sentence after it learned of the attack.
Finding that the bombing did not and could not have affected Almontes sentence, the
court denied the motion. Appendix (App.) 83.
2
The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3231, and we have
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291 and 18 U.S.C. 3742(a).
1
submits an Anders brief is . . . twofold: (1) whether counsel adequately fulfilled the
rules requirements; and (2) whether an independent review of the record presents any
nonfrivolous issues. United States v. Youla, 241 F.3d 296, 300 (3d Cir. 2001). If the
Anders brief initially appears adequate on its face, the second step of our inquiry is
guided . . . by the Anders brief itself. Id. at 301 (quotation marks omitted). When
reviewing an Anders motion, we exercise plenary review. See Simon v. Govt of V.I.,
679 F.3d 109, 114 (3d Cir. 2012).
We conclude that counsels Anders brief is adequate and will thus guide our
independent review of the record. Counsel identifies several possible claims that
Almonte could make on appeal, which he groups into three categories: (1) whether the
District Court had jurisdiction over this case; (2) whether Almontes guilty plea was
knowing and voluntary; and (3) whether the District Court committed sentencing error.
Our independent review of the record confirms that these issues are wholly frivolous.
The District Court had jurisdiction over Almontes case pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
3231. As to the next possible claim, there can be no question that Almontes plea was
knowing and voluntary. The plea agreement was presented to Almonte in writing, and he
signed it. At Almontes March 3, 2011 guilty plea hearing, the District Court determined
that Almonte was twenty-four years old, had a high-school education, and did not suffer
from any mental illness that would prevent him from answering its questions. The court
verified that Almonte had read the entire plea agreement, explained the rights Almonte
was waiving, and asked whether Almonte understood the waiver. It specifically asked
whether Almonte understood that he could not challenge his judgment of sentence unless
4