United States of America v. George W. Reddick

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
__________
No. 06-3939
__________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
GEORGE W. REDDICK,
Appellant
__________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennslvania
(D.C. Criminal No. 05-cr-00482)
District Judge: Honorable Christopher C. Conner
__________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
on January 31, 2008
Before: RENDELL and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges,
and POLLAK, District Judge.
(Filed : April 2, 2008)
__________________
* Honorable Louis H. Pollak, Senior Judge of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 4 --

By this Court’s order, Reddick was given until February 14, 2007 to file a pro se brief1
in response to the analysis set forth in his counsel’s Anders brief. On August 29, 2007,
several months after the deadline for filing his response had passed, Reddick filed with
(continued...)
2
__________
OPINION OF THE COURT
__________
RENDELL, Circuit Judge.
Appellant George W. Reddick (“Reddick”) was charged with distribution and
possession with intent to distribute cocaine base and cocaine hydrochloride in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). He pled guilty on March 30, 2006, and, on August 25, 2006, the
District Court sentenced Reddick to 151 months of incarceration to be followed by three
years of supervised release. He was also ordered to pay a $1,000 fine, $1,000 in
community restitution, and a $100 special assessment. Reddick filed a timely notice of
appeal.
Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
requesting permission to withdraw because he is unable to identify any non-frivolous
issues for appeal after a conscientious review of the record. Reddick was given notice of
his counsel’s intent to withdraw and filed an untimely pro se brief setting forth four
alleged “errors of law” made in relation to the calculation of his Sentencing Guidelines
range. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). For the1

-- 2 of 4 --

(...continued)1
the Court a document entitled “Supplement Issues to be reviewed On Direct Appeal”
(“Supplemental Brief”).
3
reasons stated below, we will grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the District
Court’s judgment of conviction and sentence.
Evaluation of an Anders brief requires a twofold inquiry: (1) whether counsel has
thoroughly examined the record for appealable issues and has explained why any such
issues are frivolous; and (2) whether an independent review of the record presents any
nonfrivolous issues. United States v. Youla, 241 F.3d 296, 300 (3d Cir. 2001). Where the
Anders brief appears adequate on its face, our review is limited to the portions of the
record identified in the brief, along with any issues raised by an appellant in a pro se
brief. See id. at 301. We conclude that the brief in this case is adequate, and thus, it will
guide our independent review of the record.
As his counsel acknowledges, Reddick is precluded from bringing an appeal due to
a waiver contained in his plea agreement. “Waivers of appeals, if entered into knowingly
and voluntarily, are valid, unless they work a miscarriage of justice.” United States v.
Khattak, 273 F.3d 557, 563 (3d Cir. 2001). Under the terms of Reddick’s plea agreement,
Reddick waived, inter alia, his right to appeal under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 or on any other
ground and waived his right to challenge any sentence or the manner in which the
sentence was determined. A review of the Change of Plea hearing transcript
demonstrates that the waiver was valid, knowing, and voluntary, as the District Court

-- 3 of 4 --

4
thoroughly reviewed the appellate waiver provisions of the plea agreement with Reddick
during its Rule 11 colloquy and again reminded Reddick of the waiver provisions at
sentencing. In his Supplemental Brief, Reddick makes no argument as to why the waiver
of appeal should not be enforced, and neither he nor his counsel identify any potential
error amounting to a miscarriage of justice. Our independent review of the record yields
no non-frivolous arguments that could possibly support an appeal in light of Reddick’s
waiver.
Accordingly, we will AFFIRM the District Court’s judgment of conviction and
sentence and, in a separate order, GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw.
________________

-- 4 of 4 --