United States v. David Steele
682 F. App'x 100
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Steele was charged by information with theft of government property (18 U.S.C. § 641) after evidence was found in his home and pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement.
- PSR calculated a Guidelines range of 6–12 months (Offense Level 8, CHC III); Steele did not object to the Guidelines calculation.
- At sentencing the District Court initially imposed 12 months imprisonment, then amended it (at defense request) to 12 months and 1 day so Steele could earn good-time credits.
- Steele timely appealed; defense counsel moved to withdraw under Anders v. California, filing an Anders brief identifying three potential issues and explaining why each was frivolous.
- Steele did not file a pro se brief. The panel independently reviewed the record, guided by the Anders brief, and found no nonfrivolous issues.
- The Court granted counsel’s Anders motion, affirmed the judgment, and denied appointment of new counsel under L.A.R. 109.2(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | U.S.: District Court has federal criminal jurisdiction | Steele: may challenge jurisdiction | Held: District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231; no arguable challenge |
| Validity of guilty plea | U.S.: Plea was knowing, voluntary, Rule 11 compliant | Steele: may argue plea invalid | Held: Plea colloquy complied with Rule 11; plea knowing and voluntary; no nonfrivolous claim |
| Lawfulness & reasonableness of sentence | U.S.: Sentence within Guidelines analysis and § 3553(a) factors; one-day increase was at defendant's request | Steele: may argue sentence unlawful/unreasonable | Held: Court correctly calculated Guidelines, considered § 3553(a), and gave reasoned explanation; 12 months + 1 day reasonable; appeal frivolous |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedures when counsel seeks to withdraw on grounds appeal is frivolous)
- United States v. Youla, 241 F.3d 296 (3d Cir. 2001) (standards for adequacy of Anders brief under L.A.R. 109.2)
- Simon v. Gov't of the Virgin Islands, 679 F.3d 109 (3d Cir. 2012) (two-step review: adequacy of Anders brief and independent review for nonfrivolous issues)
- United States v. Grober, 624 F.3d 592 (3d Cir. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion standard for procedural and substantive reasonableness)
- United States v. Gunter, 462 F.3d 237 (3d Cir. 2006) (three procedural steps for sentencing: calculate Guidelines, rule on departures, consider § 3553(a) and explain)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences)
- Broce, 488 U.S. 563 (1989) (appeals following guilty pleas)