United States of America v. SYLVANUS GANSALLO a/k/a TERRANCE HOWARD Sylvanus Gansallo

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 01-2859
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
SYLVANUS GANSALLO
a/k/a TERRANCE HOWARD
Sylvanus Gansallo,
Appellant
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
D.C. Criminal No. 01-cr-00123
(Honorable Robert F. Kelly)
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
January 9, 2003
Before: SCIRICA, BARRY and SMITH, Circuit Judges
(Filed March 31, 2003)
OPINION OF THE COURT
SCIRICA, Circuit Judge.
After the defendant, Sylvanus Gansallo, filed this pro se appeal, his attorney filed a
motion to withdraw as counsel and an Anders brief asserting that Gansallo’s appeal
raises no non-frivolous issues. We will affirm the judgment of conviction and sentence
and grant defense counsel’s motion to withdraw.
I.
Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Gansallo pleaded guilty to two counts of
bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1344. The District Court assigned Gansallo an
offense level of 12 and sentenced him to 12 months and 1 day imprisonment. On May
23, 2002, Gansallo’s attorney filed a motion to withdraw as counsel accompanied by an
Anders brief. This court subsequently alerted Gansallo of his right to file a formal or
informal brief that shows why his conviction should be set aside. Gansallo has not filed a

-- 1 of 2 --

brief in support of this appeal. II.
In Anders, the Supreme Court provided that defense counsel may request
permission to withdraw from a wholly frivolous case "after a conscientious examination
of it." Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. The request to withdraw "must . . . be accompanied by a
brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal." Id.
An Anders brief must "satisfy the court that counsel has thoroughly examined the
record for appealable issues and . . . explain why the issues are frivolous." United States
v. Youla, 241 F.3d 296, 300 (3d Cir. 2001). Gansallo’s attorney was unable to find an
error or defect in the plea. Nor has Gansallo raised any claim of error. Specifically,
Gansallo’s attorney examined the following relevant issues: (1) whether the District Court
had jurisdiction to accept Gansallo’s guilty plea; (2) whether Gansallo’s plea comported
with controlling constitutional and statutory standards; and (3) whether the District Court
imposed a legal sentence. After reviewing the record, none of these contentions has
merit. Furthermore, we see no other valid basis for overturning Gansallo’s conviction.
See Youla, 241 F.3d at 300 (providing that appellate courts must conduct independent
review of record for non-frivolous issues).
III.
Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of conviction and sentence. Defense
counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.
/s/ Anthony J. Scirica
Circuit Judge

-- 2 of 2 --