UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. ASHABI DAVIS, a/k/a Shebe Ashabi Davis v. California, 386 U.S. 738 1967 , stating that, in his view, there are no meritorious…

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 01-3705
___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
vs.
ASHABI DAVIS,
a/k/a Shebe
Ashabi Davis,
Appellant
___________
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
(D.C. Criminal No. 00-cr-00133-5)
District Judge: The Honorable Edwin M. Kosik
___________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
January 24, 2003

-- 1 of 5 --

* Honorable Alan D. Lourie, Circuit Judge for the United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.
2
BEFORE: NYGAARD, AMBRO, and LOURIE,* Circuit Judges.
(Filed: February 6, 2003)
___________
OPINION OF THE COURT
___________
NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal by defendant Ashabi Davis from the judgment of the District
Court in a criminal case following a bargained for guilty plea. Davis’ counsel has filed a
brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in his view, there
are no meritorious issues for appeal. Counsel also filed a motion to withdraw his
representation. Davis was advised of her right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has
failed to do so. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the District Court and grant
counsel’s motion to withdraw representation.
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 is 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

-- 2 of 5 --

3
plea constitutes an admission that the defendant committed the charged crimes, any claim
that is inconsistent with an admission of guilty 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. We need not describe the colloquy in detail. It is sufficient to state
our conclusion that each of the requirements of Rule 11(c) was amply covered.
We always pay particularly close attention to the factual basis for the plea. In
this case, it appeared to have been convincingly established. As the United States Attorney
informed the District Court:
If this case went to trial, we would show that there was a
scheme to bring cocaine from New York City to the Pocono
area, that Ms. Davis was part of this agreement to engage in this
conduct. That her husband, James Landron, was one of the
leaders of this scheme . . . That Ms. Davis joined this scheme,
that she would get cocaine at times from James Landron . . .
that she would sell cocaine herself to others, and that at times
she would also cook cocaine, crack cocaine . . . . The
government would also offer the testimony of numerous
confederates to this, and who would specify and lay out the
terms of this conspiracy and Ms. Davis’ involvement in the
scheme . . . The evidence would prove each of the essential
elements of the crime, that being that there was a scheme to
distribute cocaine and cocaine base, and that Ms. Davis
knowingly and intentionally entered into that scheme, that she
also participated in that scheme by selling cocaine herself and
by turning cocaine into crack cocaine.
Davis acknowledged the U.S. Attorney’s synopsis to be a correct recitation of her
involvement.

-- 3 of 5 --

4
We have reconfirmed the duty of counsel filing Anders briefs to attempt to
uncover the best arguments for his or her client, and to explain the faults in possible
arguments. See United States v. Marvin, 211 F.3d 778 (3d Cir. 2000). We have
independently examined the scant record in this case and find nothing that would require
counsel to do more than he has already done. We are unable to find any ground upon which
to disagree with counsel for Davis and the government that the record fails to reveal any
non-frivolous issue which would warrant our review.
Therefore, because we have failed to identify any issues of merit in the
record before us, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment in this matter. Counsel’s
motion to withdraw will be granted under a separate order.
_

-- 4 of 5 --

________________________
TO THE CLERK:
Please file the foregoing opinion.
/s/Richard L. Nygaard
Circuit Judge

-- 5 of 5 --