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

11-5-2008 USA v. Zuniga-Torres Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 07-3915

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008 Recommended Citation "USA v. Zuniga-Torres" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 261. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/261

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NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT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. 07-3915

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. VICENTE ZUNIGA-TORRES a/k/a “PRETTY BOY” Vicente Zuniga-Torres, Appellant

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.N.J. No. 07-cr-00227-1) District Judge: The Honorable Jerome Simandle

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) October 31, 2008 BEFORE: McKEE, NYGAARD, and SILER,* Circuit Judges.

(Filed: November 5, 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, Vicente Zuniga-Torres, entered into a plea agreement with the Government, whereby he agreed to plead guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute grams or more of cocaine. The District Court sentenced him to 57 months’ incarceration and five years of supervised release. 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, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Zuniga-Torres’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.