Opinions of the United 2003 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

4-17-2003

USA v. Washington Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket 02-2304

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003

Recommended Citation "USA v. Washington" (2003). 2003 Decisions. Paper 645. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003/645

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2003 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ____________

No. 02-2304 ____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

RAIFREAN WASHINGTON a/k/a RAY

Raifrean Washington,

Appellant

___________________

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

(D.C. No. 00-cr-00024-1) District Court Judge: Hon. Ronald L. Buckwalter _____________________

Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) April 7, 2003

Before: ALITO, FUENTES, and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges

(Opinion Filed: April 17, 2003) _________________

OPINION OF THE COURT ____________________

PER CURIAM: This is an appeal from a judgment in a criminal case. The defendant, Raifrean

Washington, pled guilty to a drug-related conspiracy and three other offenses.

The defendant’s attorney has submitted a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,

(1967), and has requested leave to withdraw. We have considered counsel’s brief

and made an independent examination of the record, and we are satisfied that there are no

non-frivolous issues to be raised on appeal. As noted, the defendant pled guilty. He also

stipulated to all relevant facts and issues regarding sentencing and cooperated with the

government. The government abided by the terms of the plea agreement in moving for a

downward departure at sentencing, and the District Court granted that motion and departed

substantially below the agreed guidelines range.

Finding no non-frivolous issues that could be raised on appeal, we grant counsel’s

motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment of the District Court.