United States of America v. Gregory Rasaan Jackson

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 09-2138
_____________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
GREGORY RASAAN JACKSON,
Appellant
____________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware
(Criminal Action No. 04-00037-1)
District Judge: Honorable Gregory M. Sleet
____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
January 28, 2010
Before: RENDELL and JORDAN, Circuit Judges,
and AMBROSE, District Judge.
(Filed: February 3, 2010)
__________________
* Honorable Donetta W. Ambrose, Judge of the United States District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 6 --

2
____________
OPINION OF THE COURT
____________
AMBROSE, District Judge.
Appellant Gregory Jackson’s appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as
counsel pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493
(1967). The government has filed a brief in support of counsel’s motion. Jackson has
not filed any pro se brief in opposition to counsel’s motion. Because we are satisfied that
there exist no non-frivolous issues for direct appeal, and Jackson’s counsel has complied
with all duties under applicable law, we will grant counsel’s motion and dismiss the
appeal.
I.
Because we write solely for the parties, we will limit our discussion to facts
relevant to framing the inquiry on appeal.
On May 12, 2005, the District Court sentenced Jackson to forty-eight months of
imprisonment and three years of supervised release. The sentence followed Jackson’s
plea of guilty to an indictment charging him with one count of being a felon in possession
of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). He was released to supervised release on
November 14, 2007. While on supervised release, Jackson failed to appear for scheduled
appointments with his probation officer, failed to attend mental health counseling, and

-- 2 of 6 --

Local Appellate Rule 109.2(a) provides, in pertinent part, as follows:1
(continued...)
3
submitted urine samples that tested positive for cocaine. Additionally, on May 13, 2008,
Jackson was arrested for second degree assault, after punching his wife and causing her
physical injury. He pleaded guilty to that charge in Delaware state court, and was
sentenced by the state court to eight years of imprisonment, suspended after serving three
years, as well as restitution. On January 9, 2009, the District Court issued an amended
petition on probation and supervised release.
Subsequently, on April 4, 2009, the District Court held a revocation and sentencing
hearing. During the hearing, Jackson admitted to violating his supervised release. The
District Court determined that the advisory sentencing guideline range was thirty-three to
forty-one months, and that there was a statutory maximum of twenty-four months. The
District Court then revoked Jackson’s supervised release, and imposed a sentence of
twenty-four months imprisonment, to run consecutive to the state sentence. Jackson then
filed this timely appeal.
II.
The District Court had subject matter jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. This
Court has appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742.
Under Anders, we engage in a two-part inquiry. First, we ask whether counsel
adequately fulfilled the requirements of Third Circuit Local Appellate Rule 109.2(a);1

-- 3 of 6 --

(...continued)1
Where, upon review of the district court record, counsel is persuaded that
the appeal presents no issue of even arguable merit, counsel may file a
motion to withdraw and supporting brief pursuant to Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), which shall be served upon the appellant and the
United States... If the panel agrees that the appeal is without merit, it will
grant counsel's Anders motion, and dispose of the appeal without
appointing new counsel.
4
second, we consider whether an independent review of the record presents any
non-frivolous issues for appeal. United States v. Coleman, 575 F.3d 316, 319 (3d Cir.
2009). In this context, moving counsel must demonstrate that the record has been
“thoroughly scoured . . . in search of appealable issues,” and must “explain why the issues
are frivolous.” United States v. Marvin, 211 F.3d 778, 780 (3d Cir. 2000). In engaging
in this inquiry, we review the Anders brief itself, as well as the record on appeal. If the
Anders brief appears facially adequate, however, we need not conduct a “complete
scouring of the record,” but instead may be “guided in reviewing the record by the Anders
brief itself,” as well defendant’s pro se brief. United States v. Youla, 241 F.3d 296, 301
(3d Cir. 2001).
After reviewing the present record and counsel’s submissions, we conclude that
counsel has complied with the requirements of both Anders and LAR 109.2. Counsel has
provided copies of the Anders brief to both Jackson and the government. It is clear, as
well, that counsel has thoroughly examined the record in order to identify any appealable
issues, and explained why the sole potential grounds for appeal would be frivolous. We

-- 4 of 6 --

5
are satisfied that counsel’s Anders brief is adequate on its face. Accordingly, and because
Jackson did not file any pro se brief, we will confine our review of the record to those
portions identified in the Anders brief.
Upon independent review of the record, we reach the same conclusion as that
reached by counsel and the government. Counsel notes that Jackson may argue that his
sentence is unreasonable, but that the argument is frivolous because the Court explained
the reasons for its sentence and properly exercised its discretion. In reviewing a sentence,
we must ensure that the district court committed no procedural error, and then consider
the reasonableness of the sentence under an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 128. Ct. 586, 594, 169 L. Ed. 2d 445 (2007).
During sentencing, the District Court discussed an uncharged gun offense, but
expressly and repeatedly stated that the offense was not part of its rationale for
sentencing. Instead, the Court stated that its sentence was based “most especially [on] the
factors outlined in Title 18, 3553(a),” and correctly calculated the applicable advisory
guideline range. Moreover, the Court adequately explained the basis for the sentence,
which involved, inter alia, Jackson’s history, characteristics, and the nature of the offense.
The Court’s decision was based on legally appropriate factors, reflects no procedural
error, and was not an abuse of discretion.

-- 5 of 6 --

6
III.
In conclusion, we are satisfied that there are no non-frivolous issues available to be
presented on appeal. We will AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court, and will
GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw. Pursuant to Third Circuit Local Appellate Rule
901.2(b), we further find that “the issues presented in the appeal lack legal merit for
purposes of counsel filing a petition for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme
Court.”

-- 6 of 6 --