Opinions of the United 2004 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

2-23-2004

USA v. Garcia Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 02-1633

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004

Recommended Citation "USA v. Garcia" (2004). 2004 Decisions. Paper 992. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004/992

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 2004 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOT PRECEDENTIAL

THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 02-1633 ___________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs.

RAMON GARCIA

Appellant.

___________

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

(D.C. Criminal No. 01-cr-00676-1) District Judge: The Honorable William G. Bassler

___________

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) January 30, 2004

BEFORE: NYGAARD and FUENTES, Circuit Judges, and O’NEILL,* District Judge.

* Honorable Thomas N. O’Neill, Jr., Senior District Judge for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. (Filed: February 23, 2004)

___________

OPINION OF THE COURT ___________ NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.

Appellant Ramon Garcia pleaded guilty to distribution of at least five

kilograms of cocaine, in violation of

. The District Court sentenced the

Appellant to seventy months imprisonment, which was at the lowest end of the sentencing

guideline range for his crime and criminal history. Garcia filed a notice of appeal, pro se,

and we appointed Arza R. Feldman, Esq., to assist with the appeal. Attorney Feldman

filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,

(1967). Counsel

indicated that there are no non-frivolous issues for appeal.

We have carefully reviewed the Appellant’s brief, along with the responsive

brief of the United States and other matters of record. Garcia did not file a pro se brief.

We conclude, after our own review of the entire record, that the District Court did not err.

Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.

The motion of defense counsel to withdraw will be granted.