United States v. Edwin Rojas , 459 F. App'x 122 ( 2012 )

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
__________
No. 11-1787
__________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
EDWIN ROJAS,
Appellant
On Appeal from the District Court of the Virgin Islands
(Division of St. Thomas and St. John)
(D.C. No. 3-08-cr-00065-001)
District Judge: Honorable Curtis V. Gomez
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
on December 8, 2011
Before: FISHER, GREENAWAY, JR. and ROTH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: January 25, 2012)
OPINION
ROTH, Circuit Judge:
Edwin Rojas appeals the revocation of his term of supervised release and the
imposition of a fifteen-month prison sentence in relation to his previous conviction for
transporting illegal aliens. His attorney has filed a motion to withdraw as his counsel and
has submitted a brief in support thereof, as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967). We agree with the attorney that this appeal is wholly frivolous and will
therefore grant the withdrawal motion and affirm the sentencing decision.
I. Background
On June 24, 2008, as a result of pleading guilty to transporting illegal aliens in
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii), Rojas was sentenced to time served and three
years of supervised release. Approximately one year later on July 13, 2009, he was
arrested in Puerto Rico for again attempting to transport an illegal alien within the United
States, and he ultimately pleaded guilty to this second charge as well. Because
committing this second offense and traveling outside the Virgin Islands were both
violations of the terms of Rojas’s supervised release, the District Court revoked that
sentence and imposed a fifteen-month prison term in its place. Rojas now appeals.
Rojas’s court-appointed attorney has, however, moved to withdraw as counsel and
has filed a brief explaining that this appeal is wholly frivolous. This Court advised Rojas
of his attorney’s submissions and invited him to provide a brief identifying any errors in
the District Court’s sentencing decision, but he failed to do so. We now consider the
validity of Rojas’s appeal. We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742.
II. Analysis
Under Anders v. California, if counsel “finds [a] case to be wholly frivolous, after
a conscientious examination” of the potential issues for appeal, he should “advise the
court and request permission to withdraw.” 386 U.S. at 744. Such a request must be
2
accompanied by a brief that “satisf[ies] the court that counsel has thoroughly examined
the record in search of appealable issues” and “explain[s] why [those] issues are
frivolous.” United States v. Youla, 241 F.3d 296, 300 (3d Cir. 2001). We will grant the
motion to withdraw and further dispose of the appeal if we find that counsel has met this
obligation and if we agree that the case presents no non-frivolous issues for review. Id.We find that Rojas’s attorney has conscientiously examined the record and
adequately explained that there are no viable issues for appeal. As the attorney’s brief
notes, the only potential sources of error in the order that Rojas appeals are the District
Court’s decisions to (1) revoke the term of supervised release and (2) sentence Rojas to a
fifteen-month prison term. Both of these orders are reviewed in this Court for abuse of
discretion, see Gov’t of V.I. v. Martinez, 239 F.3d 293, 297 (3d Cir. 2001); United States
v. Doe, 617 F.3d 766, 769 (3d Cir. 2010), and Rojas’s attorney convincingly explains
why neither is reversible under this standard. As to the revocation decision, the attorney
has identified not only the portions of the record that establish that traveling outside of
the Virgin Islands and illegally transporting aliens within the United States are prohibited
by the conditions of Rojas’s supervised release but also Rojas’s own testimony admitting
to these violations. And as for the fifteen-month prison sentence, Rojas’s attorney
explains that it is within the twelve to eighteen month range recommended by the United
States Sentencing Guidelines and identifies the portion of the record showing that the
District Court considered the required sentencing factors. We are satisfied that, by
3
presenting this analysis, Rojas’s attorney has met his obligations to conscientiously
examine the record for appealable issues and to demonstrate why they are without merit.
We further agree with the attorney’s conclusions that neither the revocation of Rojas’s
supervised release nor the imposition of a fifteen-month prison sentence in its place was
an abuse of the District Court’s discretion, and we accordingly find that Rojas’s appeal is
wholly frivolous.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, we will grant Rojas’s attorney’s motion to withdraw
and affirm the District Court’s judgment of sentence.
4