United States of America v. Jeffrey E. Michelson

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 12-2018
_____________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
JEFFREY E. MICHELSON,
Appellant
____________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(No. 3:09-cr-748-01)
District Judge: Hon. Freda L. Wolfson
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
November 16, 2012
Before: RENDELL, FUENTES and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: November 20, 2012)
____________
OPINION
____________
CHAGARES, Circuit Judge.
Jeffrey Michelson pled guilty to one count of bank fraud. Michelson appeals and
his counsel has moved to withdraw representation under Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
738 (1967). For the reasons that follow, we will grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and
affirm the District Court’s judgment of conviction and sentence.
I.
We write exclusively for the parties and thus recount only the facts essential to our
disposition. On September 30, 2009, Michelson pled guilty to one count of bank fraud in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344. The charge arose from Michelson’s conduct as Chief
Executive Officer (CEO) of his family’s company, Glikin Brothers, which distributed
tobacco, candy, and other products. As CEO, Michelson managed the daily financial
operations of the company. In that capacity, Michelson altered or caused to be altered
checks received from other companies to reflect increased amounts. He then deposited
those checks into the company’s operating account to obtain larger deposits and instant
credit by fraud. Michelson also deposited worthless checks into the company’s operating
account, which created instant credit in the amount of each worthless deposit. This
conduct allowed Michelson to represent falsely the financial solvency of the company. In
2008, Michelson successfully applied for a $1.75 million small business loan with a $2.5
million line of credit from Provident Bank. Michelson thereafter submitted fictitious
documents to ensure that Provident Bank would continue to extend credit.
Michelson and the Government entered into a plea agreement. Under the terms of
the agreement, Michelson waived his right to appeal a sentence that resulted from an
advisory United States Sentencing Guidelines (Guidelines) offense level of twenty-four
or less. At sentencing, the District Court granted the Government’s U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1
motion for a two-level downward departure based on Michelson’s substantial assistance.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
The downward departure resulted in an offense level of twenty-two, which, combined
with Michelson’s criminal history category, yielded an advisory Guidelines range of
forty-one to fifty-one months of imprisonment. On February 15, 2011, the District Court
sentenced Michelson to forty-four months of imprisonment followed by a four-year term
of supervised release. After a separate hearing, the court ordered restitution to Provident
Bank in the amount of $4,005,601.27 and restitution to the Michelson family in the
amount of $535,836.23.
Michelson appeals and his counsel has moved to withdraw under Anders.
II.1
Counsel may move to withdraw from representation if, after a thorough
examination of the District Court record, he or she is “persuaded that the appeal presents
no issue of even arguable merit.” 3d Cir. L.A.R. 109.2(a); see also Anders, 386 U.S. at
744 (“[I]f counsel finds his case to be wholly frivolous, after a conscientious examination
of it, he should so advise the court and request permission to withdraw.”). To evaluate an
Anders motion to withdraw, this Court will ask: (1) whether counsel has thoroughly
examined the record for appealable issues and explained why any such issues are
frivolous; and (2) whether an independent review of the record presents any non-
frivolous issues. United States v. Youla, 241 F.3d 296, 300 (3d Cir. 2001). If “the
Anders brief initially appears adequate on its face,” the second step of our inquiry is
“guided . . . by the Anders brief itself.” Id. at 301 (quotation marks omitted).
1 The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. This Court exercises
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

-- 3 of 4 --

4
Michelson’s attorney submits that he has thoroughly reviewed the record and
found no non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal. Counsel has identified three possible
areas for review: (1) whether the District Court had jurisdiction; (2) whether Michelson
entered a valid guilty plea; and (3) whether the sentence and order to pay restitution were
procedurally and substantively reasonable. After reviewing the record, counsel concludes
that the District Court properly exercised jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231, that
the plea hearing satisfied Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, and that the District
Court properly sentenced Michelson. With respect to Michelson’s sentence, counsel
asserts that the District Court correctly calculated the advisory Guidelines range,
evaluated departure motions, and considered the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.
Counsel also concludes that the plea agreement bars Michelson’s appeal of his sentence
and the restitution order.
Counsel’s Anders brief is adequate and will guide our review of the record. We
agree with counsel that Michelson’s plea was voluntary, that his sentence was
procedurally and substantively reasonable, and that Michelson waived his right to appeal
a sentence that fell within the range contemplated by the plea agreement. A review of the
record also confirms that the District Court carefully considered the proper amount of
restitution. We conclude that there are no non-frivolous issues for Michelson to raise on
appeal.
III.
For the foregoing reasons, we will grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm
the judgment of conviction and sentence.

-- 4 of 4 --