United States v. Jonathan Alvarado, 448 F. App'x 197

Alvarado appeals a district court judgment sentencing him to 12 months’ imprisonment for violating supervised release (Dec. 16, 2010).
Counsel moved to withdraw under Anders v. California after filing a brief in support of withdrawal; no pro se brief by Alvarado.
Alvarado pled guilty in 2005 to a smash-and-grab robbery in Florida and testified against co-defendants pre-sentencing
The district court departed downward for substantial assistance but Alvarado later refused to testify; his supervised release was transferred to New Jersey for testimony.
Between release and testimony, Alvarado violated probation (failed reports, left residence, unlawful employment, used marijuana) and fled; arrest followed.
At the revocation hearing, Alvarado admitted violations; the court discussed consequences but did not address certain Rule 32.1 rights or require a formal waiver colloquy.
The district court sentenced him to 12 months’ imprisonment, an upward departure from the Guidelines range under U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4, app. n. 4.
On Dec. 20, 2010, Alvarado filed a notice of appeal; Anders brief was filed; no pro se brief by Alvarado.
The panel granted Anders withdrawal if no nonfrivolous issues exist and proceeded to review the record for any nonfrivolous issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Rule 32 compliance not inquired (Rule 32(i)(1)(A))	Alvarado argues district court failed to verify reading/discussion of the Report.	Government contends no such requirement applies in supervised-release revocation.	Frivolous; plain-error review denied.
Knowing and voluntary admission	Alvarado contends admission of violations was involuntary.	Waiver of revocation rights satisfied by totality of circumstances; admission suggests waiver.	Frivolous; no plain error.
Written statement of reasons for upward departure	District court erred by not providing Morrissey-style written reasons.	Morrissey requires written reasons for parole revocation, not for revocation of supervised release; general reasons stated on record suffice.	Frivolous; not required by Morrissey or statute.

Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1972) (due process in revocation proceedings; no full rights upon revocation.)
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (permits withdrawal of counsel when no nonfrivolous issues exist.)
Youla, 241 F.3d 296 (3d Cir. 2001) (guides review of adequacy of Anders brief.)
Marvin, 211 F.3d 778 (3d Cir. 2000) (adequacy standard for Anders brief.)
Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (U.S. 2000) (counsel need not raise every possible claim.)
Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (U.S. 1997) (plain-error framework.)
Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1972) (due process in revocation; repeated.)
Barnhart, 980 F.2d 219 (3d Cir. 1992) (waiver of Rule 32.1 rights analyzed under totality.)
Hodges, 460 F.3d 646 (5th Cir. 2006) (Rule 32.1 rights waiver standard.)
Correa-Torres, 326 F.3d 18 (1st Cir. 2003) (waiver of Rule 32.1 rights contextual.)
LeBlanc, 175 F.3d 511 (7th Cir. 1999) (waiver analysis in revocation context.)
Blackston, 940 F.2d 877 (3d Cir. 1991) (need for written reasons for more stringent sentence.)
Adams v. United States, 252 F.3d 276 (3d Cir. 2001) (plain-error review in Anders context.)