United States of America v. Marcus Garner

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
____________
No. 06-2406
____________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
MARCUS GARNER,
Appellant.
____________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(No. 05-cr-0205)
District Judge: Hon. William W. Caldwell
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
March 29, 2007
Before: RENDELL, BARRY, and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges.
____________
(Filed: April 18, 2007 )
OPINION OF THE COURT
CHAGARES, Circuit Judge.
Counsel for Marcus Garner petitions this Court for permission to withdraw from
representation of Garner pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). For the

-- 1 of 3 --

Because Garner has not filed a pro se brief, we do not know what error he assigns1
to the District Court.
2
reasons that follow, we will grant the motion and affirm Garner’s conviction and sentence.
On October 12, 2005, a grand jury returned a two-count indictment charging
Garner with interstate travel in aid of racketeering and possession of crack cocaine with
intent to distribute in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952 and 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1),
respectively. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Garner pled guilty to the racketeering charge
on December 12, 2005. In exchange for Garner’s plea of guilty, the Government agreed
to dismiss the drug possession charge, and to recommend a two-level reduction in
Garner’s offense level, which it did.
Thereafter, the District Court commissioned the preparation of a Presentence
Report (PSR). The PSR determined that Garner’s total offense level was 26, and his
criminal history was category IV, which corresponded to a Guideline range of 92-115
months. Because the statutory maximum Garner could receive was 60 months, his actual
exposure was substantially less than his Guideline range would indicate. Garner made no
objections to the PSR.
On April 13, 2006, the District Court sentenced Garner to 60 months
imprisonment. This appeal ensued.1
The Anders brief submitted to this Court demonstrates that Garner’s attorney has
“thoroughly examined the record in search of appealable issues,” and has explained why
any issues arguably supporting the appeal are frivolous. United States v. Youla, 241 F.3d

-- 2 of 3 --

3
296, 300 (3d Cir. 2001). Moreover, an independent review of “those portions of the
record identified by [the] Anders brief” reveals no non-frivolous issues Garner might
profitably raise on appeal. Id. at 301. Accordingly, we will grant the Anders motion and
affirm Garner’s conviction and sentence without appointing new counsel. See 3d Cir.
L.A.R. 109.2.

-- 3 of 3 --