United States of America v. Issiah N. Grayson

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 06-2622
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
ISSIAH N. GRAYSON,
Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Criminal No. 03-cr-00250-7)
District Judge: Honorable Christopher C. Conner
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
December 13, 2007
Before: RENDELL, GREENBERG and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges
(Filed : December 19, 2007)
OPINION OF THE COURT
RENDELL, Circuit Judge.
Issiah Grayson was charged with interstate travel in aid of racketeering in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(3). He pled guilty on March 26, 2004 and, pursuant to a plea
agreement, was sentenced to 60 months’ imprisonment. Counsel has filed a brief

-- 1 of 3 --

2
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), requesting permission to withdraw
because he is unable to find any non-frivolous issues for appeal after a conscientious
review of the record. Grayson was given notice of his counsel’s intent to withdraw and
has not filed a pro se brief. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C.
§ 3742(a). For the reasons stated below, we will grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and
affirm the District Court’s judgment of sentence.
Evaluation of an Anders brief requires a twofold inquiry: (1) whether counsel has
thoroughly examined the record for appealable issues and has explained why any such
issues are frivolous; 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). Where
the Anders brief appears adequate on its face, our review is limited to the portions of the
record identified in the brief, along with any issues raised by an appellant in a pro se brief.
See id. at 301. We conclude that the brief in this case is adequate and, in the absence of a
pro se brief by the appellant, will guide our independent review of the record.
Pursuant to his obligation under the first prong of our analysis, counsel has
identified two weak arguments for appeal, namely that the sentence imposed exceeded the
sentence necessary to “provide just punishment for the offense” and to “reflect the
seriousness of the offense.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A). Both of these arguments go to
the reasonableness of the sentence imposed by the District Court in light of the factors set
forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
We review the overall sentence for reasonableness. United States v. Grier, 475
F.3d 556, 568 (3d Cir. 2006) (citing United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 260-63
(2005)). The record establishes that the District Court properly considered the factors
found in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), complying with this Court’s decision in United States v.
Cooper, 437 F.3d 324 (3d Cir. 2006). The District Court “gave meaningful
consideration” both to the §3553(a) factors and to “sentencing grounds properly raised by
the parties which have recognized legal merit and factual support.” Id. at 329, 331.
Finally, the District Court provided detailed reasons for the sentence imposed. The
sentence was not excessive to “provide just punishment for the offense” or to “reflect the
seriousness of the offense.” Although the statutory maximum term of imprisonment that
could be imposed for the crime to which Grayson pled guilty was 60 months’
imprisonment, the 60 months of imprisonment imposed was almost fifty percent below
what the correct Guideline range would have been, absent the charge bargain between
defendant and the government. Consequently, Grayson’s argument that his sentence is
unreasonable would not support an appeal.
Our independent review of the record yields no other non-frivolous arguments that
could possibly support an appeal and we are satisfied that all the requirements of
Anders have been met. Accordingly, we will AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court
and, in a separate order, GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw.

-- 3 of 3 --