United States of America v. Arsenio Reynoso

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 03-1747
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
ARSENIO REYNOSO,
Appellant
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
D.C. Criminal No. 02-cr-00463-1
(Honorable Stewart Dalzell)
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
September 13, 2004
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, ALITO and AM BRO, Circuit Judges
(Filed September 24, 2004)
OPINION OF THE COURT

-- 1 of 3 --

1Reynoso was provided a copy of counsel’s brief, and we afforded him an opportunity
to file a pro se brief. He did not file a brief.
2
SCIRICA, Chief Judge.
In this appeal, defendant Arsenio Reynoso contests a 30-month sentence imposed
under a bargained-for guilty plea to possession with the intent to distribute cocaine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Reynoso’s counsel filed a brief under Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, after a careful review of the case, he was
unable to identify any non-frivolous issue for review.1 We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291.
Counsel in an Anders situation must thoroughly search the record to uncover the
best arguments for his client, refer to those portions of the record that might arguably
support the appeal, and direct the Court to the relevant law. See United States v. Marvin,
211 F.3d 778 (3d Cir. 2000). We are satisfied that counsel has fulfilled his Anders
obligations. Counsel’s brief addresses one issue, whether the District Court should have
granted a greater departure. Because the District Court was aware of its discretion to
depart downward, we lack jurisdiction to review the extent of the court’s departure.
United States v. Stevens, 223 F.3d 239, 248 (3d Cir. 2000); United States v. Denardi, 892
F.2d 269, 271-72 (3d Cir. 1989). We find no other possible grounds for appeal, nor any
basis for appeal with respect to sentencing.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
We will affirm the judgment of conviction. We lack jurisdiction to review the
downward departure issue. Defense counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

-- 3 of 3 --