United States v. Nicholas Cerione, 24-1106

Nicholas Cerione pled guilty to possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B) and (b)(2) pursuant to a written plea agreement in January 2023.
As part of the plea agreement, Cerione waived certain appellate rights, including rights related to stipulated facts about the severity of the crime.
The District Court conducted a thorough Rule 11 plea colloquy and accepted Cerione's plea, finding it knowing, voluntary, and supported by adequate factual basis.
The Probation Office determined a Guidelines range of 78–97 months; the court imposed a downward-variant sentence of 60 months.
Cerione appealed; his appointed counsel filed an Anders brief and moved to withdraw, asserting no nonfrivolous grounds for appeal existed.
The Third Circuit independently reviewed the record to determine the merits of possible appellate issues and the adequacy of counsel’s Anders submission.

Issue	Cerione’s Argument	Government’s Argument	Held
Enforceability of appellate waiver	Appellate waiver invalid or unenforceable	Waiver was knowing and voluntary	Waiver valid and enforceable
Validity of guilty plea	Rule 11 hearing or plea was deficient	Plea was knowing, voluntary, and informed	Plea valid; no Rule 11 violations
Reasonableness of sentence	Sentence is procedurally or substantively unreasonable	Sentence complies with law; is reasonable	Sentence reasonable and lawful

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (sets the process for counsel to withdraw when an appeal is frivolous)
United States v. Youla, 241 F.3d 296 (3d Cir. 2001) (standards for adequacy of Anders brief and court’s review)
United States v. Cooper, 437 F.3d 324 (3d Cir. 2006) (abuse of discretion standard for sentencing challenges)
United States v. Gunter, 462 F.3d 237 (3d Cir. 2006) (three-step sentencing procedure and Guidelines calculation)
United States v. Tomko, 562 F.3d 558 (3d Cir. 2009) (en banc) (substantive reasonableness standard for sentences)