United States v. Michelle Cantatore
706 F. App'x 86
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Cantatore pled guilty to bank robbery and wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and § 1343, admitting use of a paintball gun to rob three FDIC-insured banks and defraud a victim of about $200,000.
- Sentencing hearing on September 7, 2016 produced a total offense level of 28 and a criminal history category of V, yielding a Guidelines range of 130–162 months.
- The district court initially indicated a desire to upwardly vary but ultimately sentenced Cantatore to 162 months, at the top of the range.
- Cantatore timely appealed; counsel filed an Anders v. California motion to withdraw, and Cantatore was given a chance to file a pro se brief but did not.
- The government filed a brief in support of the Anders motion; the appeal presents potential issues framed by counsel, including jurisdiction, the guilty plea, and sentence reasonableness.
- The court conducted its review under Anders and independently reviewed for any nonfrivolous issues, ultimately concluding none merited meritorious appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal presents any nonfrivolous issues | Cantatore | Government | No meritorious issues found; Anders satisfied. |
| Whether the District Court had jurisdiction | Cantatore | Government | Jurisdiction proper under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. |
| Whether Cantatore's guilty-plea hearing complied with Rule 11 | Cantatore | Government | Plea knowingly and voluntarily, Rule 11 satisfied. |
| Whether the sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable | Cantatore | Government | Within-Guidelines and reasonable given § 3553(a) factors. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 F.3d 738 (Supreme Court, 1967) (indigent counsel must seek to withdraw when no nonfrivolous issues exist)
- United States v. Youla, 241 F.3d 296 (3d Cir. 2001) (standard for reviewing Anders briefs)
- United States v. Schweitzer, 454 F.3d 197 (3d Cir. 2006) (Rule 11 admonitions and ensuring plea voluntariness)
- Vonn v. United States, 535 U.S. 55 (Supreme Court, 2002) (requirements for knowing and voluntary guilty plea)
- United States v. Sanders, 165 F.3d 248 (3d Cir. 1999) (merit of downward variance claim under Anders analysis)
- Simon v. Gov’t of U.S. Virgin Islands, 679 F.3d 109 (3d Cir. 2012) (non-qualifying ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal)
- United States v. Grober, 624 F.3d 592 (3d Cir. 2010) (standard for reviewing sentences for abuse of discretion)