United States v. Richard Joseph ( 2019 )

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
________________
No. 17-3548
________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
RICHARD JOSEPH
a/k/a Richard Beltre
a/k/a Joseph Richards
a/k/a Aaron Joseph,
Appellant
________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(District Court No. 2-14-cr-00306-001)
District Judge: Hon. Susan D. Wigenton
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
March 14, 2019
Before: McKEE, ROTH and FUENTES, Circuit Judges
(Opinion Filed: August 19, 2019)
___________
OPINION
___________

This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute
binding precedent.
McKEE, Circuit Judge.
Richard Joseph appeals the District Court’s revocation of supervised release and
the sentence that the court imposed based upon his violations of the terms of his release.
For the following reasons, we will affirm the judgment of sentence.
I.1
Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,2 and accompanying
Motion to Withdraw. In that brief, counsel represents that, “after a conscientious
examination of the record,” he informed Joseph “that there are no non-frivolous issues for
appeal.”3 When counsel files an Anders brief, we must determine “(1) whether
counsel[’s] [brief] adequately fulfill[s] [Third Circuit Local Appellate Rule 109.2(a)’s]
requirements; and (2) whether an independent review of the record presents any
nonfrivolous issues.”4 Counsel’s brief must first “satisfy the court that counsel has
thoroughly examined the record in search of appealable issues,” and second, must
“explain why the issues are frivolous.”5 On review, “[t]his Court’s role is then to decide
whether the case is wholly frivolous. If so, the Court can grant counsel’s motion to
withdraw and dismiss the appeal under federal law….”6
1
The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
2
See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
3
Appellant’s Br. at 10.
4
United States v. Youla, 241 F.3d 296, 300 (3d Cir. 2001).
5
Id.
6
Id. at 299
2
Counsel’s brief satisfies Rule 109.2(a). Counsel represents that he reviewed the
record for non-frivolous issues for appeal and identified a potentially appealable issue—
whether Joseph not being provided with a preliminary hearing before the final revocation
of supervised release hearing warrants reversal. Counsel determined that the issue would
be frivolous in the absence of demonstrable prejudice and there is no such prejudice on
this record. The Brief adequately discusses our precedent and any relevant cases from the
Supreme Court, and it applies the law to the facts of this case.
Our examination of the record confirms that there are no non-frivolous issues for
appeal and we will therefore confirm the judgment of the District Court. We will also
grant counsel’s Motion to Withdraw.
3