United States of America v. CRAIG ALAN LEVI Craig A. Levi

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
Nos. 01-2332, 01-2333, 01-2334, 01-2335 & 01- 2336
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
CRAIG ALAN LEVI
Craig A. Levi,
Appellant
On Appeal From The United States District Court
For the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Crim. Nos. 00-cr-00128, 00-cr-00174,
00-cr-00253, 00-cr-00266, 01-cr-00012)
District Judge: Honorable James F. McClure, Jr.
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
January 24, 2002
BEFORE: NYGAARD and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges,
and SLEET*, District Judge
(Filed February 5, 2002)
__________________________________
* Honorable Gregory M. Sleet, United States District Judge for the District of Delaware,
sitting by designation.
MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT
STAPLETON, Circuit Judge:
Appellant Craig A. Levi pled guilty to wire fraud, aiding and abetting wire fraud,
use of false identification to commit wire and mail fraud, interstate transportation of
stolen property, and wire fraud while on release.
After filing a timely appeal, defense counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel
and a brief in support of this motion pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967). Defense counsel determined after a conscientious review of the record that "there
are no non-frivolous issues for review."
In accordance with the mandate of Anders, we have performed an independent
review of the record to determine whether it presents any non-frivolous issues that would

-- 1 of 2 --

justify review. Because we conclude that it does not, we will affirm the judgment of the
District Court and grant defense’s counsel motion to withdraw.
Counsel identified one arguable non-frivolous issue for review in his brief:
whether the District Court abused its discretion by departing only one level downward in
response to appellant’s motion to depart on the ground that appellant’s crimes were
committed while he was suffering from a significantly reduced mental capacity. We lack
jurisdiction to review an exercise of discretion by a District Court in granting or denying
a departure. United States v. Denardi, 892 F.2d 269 (3d Cir. 1980).
The appeal will be dismissed for want of jurisdiction insofar as it asks us to review
the failure to grant a greater departure. The judgment of the District Court will be
affirmed and counsel’s motion to withdraw will be granted. Further, pursuant to L.A.R.
109.2(b), we find that "the issues presented in the appeal lack legal merit for purposes of
counsel filing a petition for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court."
TO THE CLERK:
Please file the foregoing Memorandum Opinion.
/s/ Walter K. Stapleton
Circuit Judge

-- 2 of 2 --