UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. FREDY BAUTISTA v. California, 386 U.S. 738 1967 . Bautista has also filed his own pro se brief

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 03-1707
___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
vs.
FREDY BAUTISTA
Appellant.
___________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Criminal No. 02-cr-00186-1)
District Judge: The Honorable John R. Padova
___________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
June 21, 2004
Before: NYGAARD, McKEE, and CHERTOFF, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: July 7, 2004)
___________
OPINION OF THE COURT
___________

-- 1 of 2 --

NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.
Fredy Bautista pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute five or more kilograms of
cocaine within 1000 feet of a school, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. The District Court
sentenced him to 87 months—the minimum sentence permitted under the applicable
guideline range. After being sentenced, Bautista filed a motion for appointment of
counsel and then, after the period for filing his notice of appeal had expired, filed a notice
of appeal. The District Court directed its clerk of court to enter Bautista’s notice of
appeal nunc pro tunc and allow Bautista to proceed in forma pauperis. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Bautista’s appointed counsel on appeal, who was also his counsel before the
District Court, has filed a brief and motion to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967). Bautista has also filed his own pro se brief and reply brief and the
government has filed its brief agreeing with Bautista’s counsel that there are no non-
frivolous issues for appeal in this case. We have carefully reviewed all submissions and
the record and agree with Bautista’s counsel and the government that there are no non-
frivolous issues in this appeal and the District Court did not err.
Accordingly, we will grant Bautista’s counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the
order of the District Court.

-- 2 of 2 --