No: 01-2957 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. John Biedrzycki, a/k/a JOHN LESZCZYNSKI, a/k/a JOHN WILSON E. D. Crim. No. 00-cr-00558

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No: 01-2957
______________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
JOHN BIEDRZYCKI,
a/k/a JOHN LESZCZYNSKI,
a/k/a JOHN WILSON
(E. D. Crim. No. 00-cr-00558)
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Criminal Action No. 99-cr-00410-1)
District Judge: Honorable William H. Yohn, Jr.,
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
on September 9, 2002
Before: NYGAARD, ROTH
and WEIS, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed : November 26, 2002)

-- 1 of 4 --

1In his notice of appeal, Biedrzycki stated that the appeal was based “on grounds of
Writ of Error Coram Nobis, on Misconduct by Government and Counsel.”
O P I N I O N
ROTH, Circuit Judge:
Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant John Biedrzycki pled guilty to the following
five counts: knowingly making a false statement to a federal firearms licensee,
possession of firearms and ammunition by a convicted felon, bank burglary, interstate
transportation of stolen property, and conspiracy to distribute marijuana. He was sentenced
by the District Court to 164 months imprisonment. The following day, Biedrzycki filed a
pro se notice of appeal.1
Biedrzycki’s trial counsel filed an appellate brief pursuant to Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), as counsel was unable to discern any non-frivolous issues which were
presented for our review. As required by Anders, counsel directed us to issues and portions
of the record that might arguably support an appeal, including jurisdiction of the trial court,
validity of the plea, and legality of the sentence. Biedrzycki was also given notice of his
attorney's desire to withdraw as required by Anders, thereby allowing Biedrzycki the
opportunity to raise any issues for appeal in a pro se brief. Id. at 744. Biedrzycki did not
file a pro se supplemental brief. We have reviewed the record and we agree that there are
no non-frivolous issues to be appealed.
Initially, we conclude that the District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §

-- 2 of 4 --

3231 and any challenge, based on lack of jurisdiction, would be frivolous.
Further, we find that the District Court complied with all of the mandates of
Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 and Boykin in accepting Biedrzycki's guilty plea. See Boykin v. Alabama,
395 U.S. 238, 243 (1969) (stating that a guilty plea must be voluntary and knowingly made
to be an effective waiver of a federal constitutional right). Before a district court can
accept a defendant’s guilty plea, the court must determine “[b]y personally interrogating the
defendant...the plea's voluntariness,...[and] develop a more complete record to support [it’s]
determination...” McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 466 (1969). Here, the district
court conducted an appropriate on-record colloquy to ensure that Biedrzycki understood
his rights and chose to waive them voluntarily. Further, the District Court determined that
there was a factual basis for his guilty plea and found that Biedrzycki understood the
charges and penalties involved. We therefore find that the evidence presented comported
with the requirements of Rule 11 and Boykin and demonstrated a sufficient factual basis for
the plea.
Finally, Biedrzycki’s counsel acknowledged that an appeal might challenge the
legality of the district court sentence. However, we agree that there is nothing here on
which to base any such appeal because the District Court imposed a sentence in the middle
of the Sentencing Guideline range.
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court and we
will grant counsel's request to withdraw.

-- 3 of 4 --

TO THE CLERK:
Please file the foregoing Opinion.
By the Court,
/s/ Jane R. Roth
Circuit Judge

-- 4 of 4 --