Third Circuit disposition — 01-1743

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 01-1743
___________
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
vs.
JOSE LUIS MEJIA
a/k/a Flaco a/k/a Moises Montes
Jose Luis Mejia,
___________
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
(D.C. Criminal No. 99-cr-00364-10 )
District Judge: The Honorable William H. Yohn, Jr.
___________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
April 19, 2002
__________
BEFORE: NYGAARD, AMBRO, and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: June 26, 2002)
___________
OPINION OF THE COURT
___________
NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal by Appellant, Jose Luis Mejia from the judgment of the
District Court in a criminal case following a bargained-for guilty plea. Mejia’s
counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 738 (1967), representing
that there are no non-frivolous issues for appeal. The brief refers to those portions
of the record that might arguably support an appeal and to the law relevant to
guilty pleas.
As a general rule, the entry of a guilty plea constitutes a waiver of virtually
all possible claims for appellate relief except (1) a claim that the court lacked
jurisdiction to accept the plea; (2) a claim that the plea was invalid, according to
applicable constitutional and statutory standards; and (3) a claim that the sentence
is illegal. See United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563 (1989); Tollett v. Henderson,
411 U.S. 258 (1973). Since a guilty plea constitutes an admission that a defendant
committed the charged crimes, any claim that is inconsistent with an admission of
guilt generally is waived by the plea. See Broce, 488 U.S. at 570-75. The guilty
plea colloquy conducted by the District Court in this case was extensive and in
conformity with the requisites of Rule 11(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure.
In United States v. Marvin, 211 F.3d 778 (3d Cir. 2000), we reconfirmed the
duty of counsel filing Anders briefs to attempt to uncover the best arguments for

-- 1 of 2 --

his or her client, and to explain the faults in possible arguments. We have
independently examined the scant record in this case, and find nothing that would
require counsel to do more than he has done already. He fairly represents that the
Rule 11 colloquy was sufficient. This case is essentially straightforward and there
do not appear to be any other issues that might be subject to possible appeal.
Therefore, the judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.
_________________________
TO THE CLERK:
Please file the foregoing opinion.
/s/Richard L. Nygaard
Circuit Judge

-- 2 of 2 --