United States v. Albert Castro
693 F. App'x 174
3rd Cir.2017Background
- Albert Castro was convicted of firearms offenses in 2007, sentenced to 126 months’ imprisonment and 36 months’ supervised release.
- After release he violated supervised release, pleaded guilty in Aug. 2016, and received 3 months’ imprisonment plus two years’ supervised release.
- After a subsequent release he again violated supervised release, pleaded guilty to the violation, and was sentenced to 11 months’ imprisonment.
- Castro appealed the revocation/sentence; appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and moved to withdraw, identifying three potential issues but deeming them frivolous.
- The Third Circuit reviewed counsel’s Anders submission and the record independently and considered whether any nonfrivolous appellate issues existed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to revoke supervised release and impose sentence | Castro might argue the District Court lacked jurisdiction over the revocation and resentencing | Federal district courts have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. §3231 and authority to revoke supervised release under §3583(e)(3) | Court: Jurisdictional challenge is frivolous; district court had authority |
| Validity of Castro’s guilty plea to the violation | Castro might argue the plea was involuntary or unintelligent | Plea was counseled, Castro admitted full responsibility, he received a revocation hearing and due process protections | Court: Plea was voluntary and intelligent; challenge is frivolous |
| Legality or reasonableness of the 11‑month sentence | Castro might argue the sentence was illegal or substantively unreasonable | Violations were Grade C; the guidelines range was 5–11 months; court considered defendant’s history and explained upward choice | Court: Sentence within range and procedurally fair; no nonfrivolous sentencing claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (requirements for counsel to brief frivolousness and move to withdraw on appeal)
- Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970) (guilty pleas must be voluntary and intelligent)
- United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563 (1989) (typical appealable issues after an accepted guilty plea)
- United States v. Youla, 241 F.3d 296 (3d Cir. 2001) (Anders obligations and appellate independent review)
- United States v. Tomko, 562 F.3d 558 (3d Cir. 2009) (standard for reviewing substantive reasonableness of sentences)