United States of America v. Luciano Salvador

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
____________
No. 06-3672
____________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
LUCIANO SALVADOR,
Appellant.
____________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(No. 02-cr-00269)
District Judge: Hon. Thomas I. Vanaskie
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
June 19, 2007
Before: McKEE, FISHER, and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges.
____________
(Filed: July 2, 2007 )
OPINION OF THE COURT
CHAGARES, Circuit Judge.
Counsel for Luciano Salvador petitions this Court for permission to withdraw from
representation of Salvador pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). For the
reasons that follow, we will grant the motion and affirm Salvador’s sentence.

-- 1 of 3 --

Because Salvador has not filed a pro se brief, we do not know what error he1
assigns to the District Court.
2
As we write only for the parties, we do not set out the facts in great detail. On
April 23, 2002, a grand jury returned a six-count indictment charging Salvador and others
with possession of cocaine and crack cocaine and conspiracy to distribute cocaine and
cocaine base, all in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Salvador
pled guilty on November 18, 2002 to possession with intent to distribute in excess of 50
grams of crack cocaine. In exchange for Salvador’s plea of guilty, the Government
acceded to a two-level reduction in Salvador’s offense level for acceptance of
responsibility.
On August 21, 2003, the District Court sentenced Salvador to 188 months of
incarceration. While his initial appeal was pending, Salvador moved for and was granted
a summary remand following United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Following
remand, the District Court imposed a sentence of 150 months of incarceration, a reduction
of more than three years from the term of incarceration originally imposed. This appeal
followed.1
The Anders brief submitted to this Court demonstrates that Salvador’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
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 Salvador might

-- 2 of 3 --

3
profitably raise on appeal. Id. at 301. Accordingly, we will grant the Anders motion and
affirm Salvador’s sentence without appointing new counsel. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 109.2.

-- 3 of 3 --