Opinions of the United 2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

11-6-2008

USA v. Marc Sykes Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 07-4018

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008

Recommended Citation "USA v. Marc Sykes" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 254. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/254

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 2008 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 NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 07-4018 ___________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

MARC SYKES a/k/a M-DOC

Marc Sykes, Appellant

___________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. No. 03-cr-00678-4) District Judge: The Honorable Mary Cooper

___________

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) October 31, 2008

BEFORE: McKEE, NYGAARD, and SILER,* Circuit Judges.

(Filed: November 6, 2008)

*The Honorable Eugene E. Siler, Jr., Senior Circuit Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. ___________

OPINION OF THE COURT ___________

SILER, Circuit Judge.

Appellant, Marc Sykes, entered into a plea agreement with the Government,

whereby he agreed to plead guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute over 50 grams

of cocaine and over 500 grams of cocaine powder. The District Court sentenced him to

166 months’ incarceration. We will affirm.

Because we write exclusively for the parties who are familiar with the facts and the

proceedings below, we will not revisit them here. Pursuant to Anders v. California,

(1967), Sykes’s counsel has examined the record, concluded that there are no

non-frivolous issues for review, and has requested permission to withdraw.

We, too, have thoroughly examined the record and can find no non-frivolous

issues to be raised in this appeal. Hence, we will affirm the judgment of the District

Court and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

2