United States of America v. Ryland Grizzle Rodriguez

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
______________
No. 10-3794
______________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
RYLAND GRIZZLE RODRIGUEZ,
Appellant
______________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Crim. No. 2-09-cr-00679-002)
Honorable Susan D. Wigenton, District Judge
______________
Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
June 24, 2011
BEFORE: HARDIMAN, VANASKIE, and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges
(Filed: June 28, 2011)
______________
OPINION OF THE COURT
______________
GREENBERG, Circuit Judge.
This matter comes on before this Court on an appeal from a judgment of sentence
and conviction entered on August 20, 2010, pursuant to a plea agreement set forth in a
letter dated September 30, 2009, from assistant United States attorney Brooke E. Carey to

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Cathy L. Waldor, attorney for appellant Ryland Grizzle Rodriguez, specifying the terms
of the plea agreement. Rodriguez and Waldor agreed to and accepted the plea agreement
by executing their written consents on October 30, 2009. The plea agreement followed
the return of an indictment against Rodriguez charging him with conspiracy to distribute
and possess 500 grams or more of cocaine pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 846. The District
Court calculated Rodriguez’s total offense level as 23 and his criminal history category as
V, yielding a sentencing range 84 to 105 months. In fact, the Court sentenced Rodriguez
to a 96-month term of incarceration to be followed by a five-year term of supervised
release. The Court, however, did not impose a fine. After the District Court entered its
sentence Rodriguez appealed.
We note at the outset that the plea agreement provided that Rodriguez waived his
right to appeal from the calculation of his total offense level if the District Court
calculated it as 23 or below but that he did not waive his right to challenge the District
Court’s calculation of his criminal history category. Nevertheless, Rodriguez has filed a
pro se brief challenging the Court’s calculation of both his total offense level and his
criminal history category. But the Government does not in its brief argue that we should
not consider Rodriguez’s challenge to his sentencing level and we have considered all of
his arguments.
After Rodriguez filed his notice of appeal pro se we entered an order on
September 21, 2010, appointing Waldor as Rodriguez’s CJA counsel, continuing an
appointment the District Court had made. Waldor, however, has filed a motion and a
brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), seeking our

-- 2 of 3 --

3
permission to withdraw as attorney for Rodriguez and indicating that her “review of the
record . . . disclosed [that there were] no non-frivolous issues for appeal . . . .”
Appellant’s br. at 3. On February 2, 2011, the Clerk referred the motion to the merits
panel and advised Rodriguez that he could file a pro se brief on the merits of the case
and, as we indicated above, he has filed that brief. The Government filed its brief after
Rodriguez filed his brief and the Government’s brief therefore addresses both
Rodriguez’s counseled and pro se briefs. Not surprisingly, the Government contends that
all issues that Waldor and Rodriguez acting pro se have raised “lack any basis in law or
fact, and are thus frivolous.” Appellee’s br. at 2. After our review of this matter we
agree with the Government as we are satisfied that the contentions which both Waldor
and Rodriguez advance are frivolous.
For the foregoing reasons we will grant Waldor’s motion to withdraw as attorney
for Rodriguez and will affirm the judgment of conviction and sentence entered on August
20, 2010.

-- 3 of 3 --