United States v. Assmus , 173 F. App'x 999 ( 2006 )

Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
4-7-2006
USA v. Assmus
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-2103
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Assmus" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 1289.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/1289
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No: 05-2103
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
WILLIAM ASSMUS,
Appellant
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
D.C. Criminal No. 04-cr-00439
District Judge: Hon. Jerome B. Simandle
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
March 27, 2006
Before: McKee, Van Antwerpen Circuit Judges and
Pollak, District Judge*
(Opinion filed: April 7, 2006)
OPINION
McKee, Circuit Judge
William Assmus appeals the sentence that was imposed after he admitted violating
the conditions of his supervised release. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm.
Because we write primarily for the parties who are familiar with this case, we need
*
The Honorable Louis H. Pollak, Senior District Judge, United States District Court,
sitting by designation.
not set forth the factual or procedural background of this appeal.
Defense counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738,
744 (1967), informing us that she has reviewed the record and found no nonfrivilous
issues for appeal. Accordingly, she requests permission to withdraw. Our review of the
record confirms counsel’s assessment that there are no nonfrivilous issues for appeal.
The defendant admitted the violations of the supervised release that form the basis
of his sentence after he was informed of his rights and stated on the record that he was
satisfied with counsel’s representation. Although there was initially some confusion
about the amount of credit defendant was entitled to for time previously spent in state
custody, defense counsel correctly concludes that the court did not have authority to
award that credit. See, 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b); U.S. v. Wilson, 503 U.S.329, 334 (1992).
Moreover, counsel represents that she has attempted to resolve the issue of that credit, and
that the issue “provides no basis for appeal.” Appellant’s brief at 14.
Since there are no nonfrivilous issues for appeal, the judgment of conviction filed
March 28, 2005 is hereby affirmed, and counsel will be granted leave to withdraw.
2