United States of America v. Tammie Luettgen

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 08-1411
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
TAMMIE LUETTGEN,
Appellant.
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 1-06-cr-00056-001)
District Court Judge: Honorable William W. Caldwell
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
January 8, 2009
Before: FUENTES, FISHER and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges
(Opinion Filed: January 21, 2009)
OPINION
FUENTES, Circuit Judge:
Tammie Luettgen’s attorney has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel, and
submitted a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Luettgen has not

-- 1 of 3 --

2
filed an opposing pro se brief. We agree that there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal
and accordingly we grant the motion to withdraw as counsel and affirm the sentence
imposed by the District Court.
Because we write for the parties, we discuss only the facts relevant to our
conclusion. While on probation, Luettgen was arrested for violating the conditions of her
supervised release. On January 31, 2008, at the Supervised Release Revocation Hearing,
Luettgen admitted to misusing a company credit card for personal expenses, submitting a
false travel itinerary to the Probation Office, and failing to notify the Probation Office
about her change in employment. The Probation Office determined that these were Grade
C violations, with a Criminal History Category I, which carried a recommended sentence
of three to nine months. Luettgen requested a sentence of in-house detention, or in the
alternative, community confinement with work release. After consideration, the District
Court imposed a sentence of five months imprisonment because it found that Luettgen
had a “troubling history of fraud, theft, and deception.”
Third Circuit Local Appellate Rule 109.2(a) provides: “Where, upon review of the
district court record, trial counsel is persuaded that the appeal presents no issue of even
arguable merit, trial counsel may file a motion to withdraw and supporting brief pursuant
to Anders v. California . . . .” Our inquiry is twofold: “(1) whether counsel adequately
fulfilled the rule’s 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).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
These conditions are met here. Luettgen’s counsel identified three possible issues
for appeal: (1) whether the District Court lacked jurisdiction; (2) whether the admission
of guilt was counseled and voluntary; and (3) whether the sentence was reasonable. His
Anders brief adequately sets forth the reasons why these issues lack merit, and an
independent review of the record shows no reason to disagree.
First, the District Court clearly had subject matter jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3231, and was authorized to revoke a sentence of supervised release under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(e). Moreover, Luettgen’s admissions of guilt were by all appearances counseled
and voluntary, particularly since she never raised any objections on this basis. Finally,
the sentence imposed was well within the correctly calculated guideline imprisonment
range of three to nine months, and was supported by an adequate statement of reasons,
namely that Luettgen had “a troubling history of fraud, theft, and deception.”
For the foregoing reasons, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the
District Court’s order revoking Luettgen’s supervised release and sentencing her to five
months’ imprisonment.

-- 3 of 3 --