United States of America v. Jemain Z. Davis

Honorable Harold A. Ackerman, Senior United States District Judge for the District*
of New Jersey, sitting by designation.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 08-3271
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
JEMAIN Z. DAVIS,
Appellant
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
(D.C. Crim. No. 08-cr-00015-1)
District Judge: The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet
Submitted Under Third circuit LAR 34.1(a)
March 5, 2009
Before: BARRY, GREENBERG, Circuit Judges, and ACKERMAN, District Judge*
(Opinion Filed: March 17, 2009)
OPINION

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
BARRY, Circuit Judge
Appellant Jemain Davis has appealed his judgment of sentence. Davis’s counsel
filed a motion to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and
Davis has not filed a supplemental brief. We will affirm the judgment of sentence, and
grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
I.
Because we write solely for the benefit of the parties, we provide only a brief
recitation of the facts underlying this case. Davis pled guilty to two counts, one for
conspiracy to commit wire fraud and one for execution of an illegal monetary transaction.
These crimes revolved around Davis’s participation in a fraud involving the submission
of false claims to the Delaware Bureau of Unclaimed Property. Davis would sign false
claim applications, and submit those applications to an employee of the Bureau also
involved in the fraud. That employee would process the false claims, and Davis would
pocket a portion of the fraudulently-procured funds. After this fraud was discovered by
the authorities, Davis pled guilty and was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment. This
timely appeal followed; in response, Davis’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw and
supporting brief pursuant to Anders.
II.
“Where, upon review of the district court record, trial counsel is persuaded that the
appeal presents no issue of even arguable merit, trial counsel may file a motion to

-- 2 of 3 --

It is not surprising that counsel can identify only one issue, given that Davis pled1
guilty rather than going to trial.
-3-
withdraw and supporting brief pursuant to Anders.” Third Circuit L.A.R.109.2(a). When
we are faced with an Anders brief, we look at whether appellant’s counsel has
“adequately fulfilled the rule’s requirements” and whether our own “independent review
of the record presents any nonfrivolous issues” for appeal. United States v. Youla, 241
F.3d 296, 300 (3d Cir. 2001).
III.
Here, we are persuaded that counsel for appellant has satisfied his obligations
under Anders and our Local Rules. Counsel identifies only one potential issue for appeal:
to wit, the reasonableness of Davis’s sentence. Davis was sentenced to 18 months1
imprisonment, a term below the suggested and undisputed Guidelines range of 24-30
months. The District Court meaningfully considered and discussed Davis’s personal
background, the nature of the offense, other relevant factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a),
and the arguments of the parties. Any appeal challenging Davis’s sentence on
reasonableness grounds, whether procedural or substantive, would be patently frivolous.
III.
Davis’s counsel has met his obligations, and our independent review of the record
convinces us there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Thus, we will affirm the
judgment of sentence and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

-- 3 of 3 --