United States of America v. YAHOR ZALATAROU a/k/a EGOR ZOLOTOREV a/k/a YAHOR ZALUPKIN a/k/a LEADER Yahor Zalatarou

1
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 06-3760
_____________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
YAHOR ZALATAROU
a/k/a
EGOR ZOLOTOREV
a/k/a
YAHOR ZALUPKIN
a/k/a
LEADER
Yahor Zalatarou,
Appellant
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for District of New Jersey
District Court No. 03-CR-889
District Judge: The Honorable Dennis M. Cavanaugh
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
October 24, 2008

-- 1 of 5 --

The Honorable Louis H. Pollak, Senior District Judge for the United States*
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
The District Court exercised jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have1
jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). See United States v. Cooper, 437 F.3d 324, 327-
28 (3d Cir. 2006).
2
Before: RENDELL and SMITH, Circuit Judges,
and POLLAK, District Judge*
(Filed: October 27, 2008 )
OPINION
SMITH, Circuit Judge.
Yahor Zalatarou pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to one count
of conspiring to distribute child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252, and one
count of conspiring to commit money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956. On
August 8, 2006, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey sentenced
Zalatarou to the maximum of 240 months of imprisonment on the child pornography
offense and to a consecutive 60 months of imprisonment on the money laundering count.
Zalatarou filed a timely notice of appeal. We will affirm the judgment of the District1
Court.
Zalatarou’s defense counsel in the District Court proceeding was appointed to
represent him on appeal. Defense counsel filed a motion to withdraw pursuant to Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that he could not find any non-frivolous

-- 2 of 5 --

3
issues to raise on appeal. The United States agrees with this representation.
In Anders, the Supreme Court stated that the “constitutional requirement of
substantial equality and fair process” means that appellate counsel must act as an
advocate for the defendant. 386 U.S. at 744. Thus, counsel’s
role as advocate requires that he support his client’s appeal to the best of his
ability. Of course, if 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. That request must, however, be accompanied by a
brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the
appeal.
Id. A satisfactory Anders brief requires evidence that counsel has throughly and
conscientiously examined the record for appealable issues, and an explanation of why the
issues presented are frivolous. United States v. Youla, 241 F.3d 296, 300 (3d Cir. 2001).
It is not necessary for counsel to “raise and reject every possible claim,” but the brief
must demonstrate a conscientious review of the case. Id.
After considering the submission of Zalatarou’s counsel, and following our own
independent review of the present record, we agree that there are no non-frivolous issues
for appeal. Counsel explained that the issues that Zalatarou could raise were limited, by
virtue of Zalatarou’s unconditional guilty plea, to questioning the validity of his guilty
plea, and challenging the legality of his sentence. See United States v. Broce, 488 U.S.
563, 574 –76 (1989). Counsel asserted that the transcript of the guilty plea colloquy
revealed no deficits. We agree. The transcript confirms that the District Court, as
required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 and Boykin v. Alabama 395 U.S. 238

-- 3 of 5 --

4
(1969), engaged in a thorough colloquy with Zalatarou to ensure that his plea was both
knowing and voluntary.
We also accept counsel’s claim that there is no basis for attacking the legality of
Zalatarou’s sentence. As counsel pointed out, Zalatarou’s objections to the presentence
report were resolved in his favor at sentencing. In light of the fact that the plea agreement
appended a set of stipulations regarding several sentencing enhancements, we cannot
discern any ground for arguing that the advisory guideline range was not computed
correctly. The transcript of the sentencing proceeding demonstrates that the District
Court meaningfully considered the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
As the government points out, Zalatarou agreed to waive any challenge to his sentence if
it was within the guideline range for an offense level of 40. Zalatarou’s sentence of 300
months was within the guideline range of 292 to 365 months.
Defense counsel observed that Zalatarou could conceivably raise an ineffective
assistance of counsel claim. Counsel recognized, however, that it is preferable to address
claims of this nature on collateral review. United States v. Thornton, 327 F.3d 268,
271–72 (3d Cir. 2003) (citing Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500 (2003)).
Zalatarou was notified by the Court on two occasions that he was entitled to file a
pro se brief with this Court, but he has not done so. See Third Circuit L.A.R. 109.2(a).
Because Zalatarou has not raised any non-frivolous issues for appeal, and because our
own independent review of the record fails to reveal any non-frivolous issues for appeal,

-- 4 of 5 --

we will grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. We will affirm the judgment of the District
Court.
5

-- 5 of 5 --