United States of America v. Michael Farmer

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 01-1607
________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
MICHAEL FARMER, Appellant
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Crim. No. 98-cr-00310-3)
District Judge: Honorable Stephen M. Orlofsky
_______________________________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
February 4, 2002
Before: BECKER, Chief Judge, McKEE and BARRY,
Circuit Judges.
(Filed: February 12, 2002)
_______________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
_______________________
BECKER, Chief Judge.
This is an appeal by defendant Michael Farmer from the judgment of the District
Court in a criminal case following a bargained-for guilty plea. Farmer’s counsel has filed
a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating, inter alia:
[D]efense counsel is compelled to advise this Court that the
record has been closely inspected and independent research
has been conducted, which has resulted in the conclusion that
the instant appeal is wholly frivolous.
Having represented the Appellant at the District Court
level sentencing, defense counsel is personally aware of all
facts related to this matter. Under these circumstances and
because court-appointed appellate counsel has conscientiously
determined that there is no merit to the appeal, it is incumbent
upon counsel to request permission to withdraw. Id. at 744.
See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988).
After thorough examination of the proceedings, we agree with counsel that there
are no non-frivolous issues on appeal. Judge Orlofsky’s plea colloquy was thorough and
precise, and there has been no suggestion of any problem with it. There is no doubt that
the plea colloquy met the requirements of Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 11. Moreover, a review of
the sentencing hearing transcript reveals that the Court imposed a sentence that met the
requirements of Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 32. Although Farmer had raised an argument about
the legality of the search, by his plea of guilty Farmer waived his right to appeal the
District Court’s denial of a suppression motion.
Farmer’s contention about whether the substance involved was crack cocaine is
foreclosed by his explicit stipulation and admissions of that fact; he stipulated in the plea
agreement and admitted both during sentencing and in his Rule 11 proceedings that the

-- 1 of 2 --

narcotic was crack cocaine. Furthermore, the District Court did not err in denying
Farmer’s motion to suppress evidence. As counsel notes, Farmer pled guilty and thereby
waived his right to appeal the suppression determination. Indeed, Farmer explicitly
waived his right to file an appeal or collateral attack against his sentence, provided that
his total offense level was equal to or less than a level 32 (Farmer’s total offense level
was 32), and we have since held that such a waiver is enforceable. See United States v.
Khattak, 278 F.3d 557 (3d Cir. 2001).
Finally, Farmer’s contentions, interposed at sentencing about the equities (and
relative responsibility), while properly made to the sentencing judge, cannot affect the
outcome of the sentence.
Our jurisprudence requires that counsel in an Anders situation adequately attempt
to uncover the best arguments for his or her client. See United States v. Donald Wayne
Marvin, 211 F.3d 778 (3d Cir. 1999). However, having read the entire record, we are
satisfied that counsel has fulfilled his Anders obligations. We will therefore grant
counsel’s request to withdraw, and will affirm the judgment on the merits.
TO THE CLERK:
Please file the foregoing Opinion.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Edward R. Becker
Chief Judge
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 11, 2002
TO: Marcy Waldron
FROM: Judge Becker
RE: United States v. Michael Farmer, No. 01-1607
Submitted Feb. 4, 2002
Dear Marcy:
Please file the enclosed Mem.Op. in the above case. The signed original will be
delivered.
Sincerely,
Edward R. Becker
ERB:afr
cc: Judge McKee
Judge Barr

-- 2 of 2 --