NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 20-1436 _____________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. MAUDILIO DIAZ-VAZQUEZ, also known as MAGDILIO DIAZ-VAZQUEZ, Appellant ________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Criminal No. 5-19-cr-00573-001) District Judge: Honorable Joseph F. Leeson, Jr. ______________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) April 12, 2021 ______________ Before: CHAGARES, JORDAN, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges (Filed: May 14, 2021) ____________ OPINION* ____________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7, does not constitute binding precedent. CHAGARES, Circuit Judge. Maudilio Diaz-Vazquez was sentenced to twenty-four months of imprisonment after pleading guilty to illegal reentry after deportation. The sentence was to be served consecutively to a state sentence of seven to twenty years of imprisonment, imposed after Diaz-Vazquez pleaded guilty to sex offenses involving a minor. His attorney has filed a motion to withdraw under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). For the reasons that follow, we will grant the motion and affirm the judgment of sentence. I. We write primarily for the parties, so our summary of the facts is brief. Diaz- Vazquez is a native and citizen of Guatemala. In 2012, he was removed from the United States and warned that illegal reentry could subject him to imprisonment. Diaz-Vazquez nevertheless reentered the country without permission in 2014, eventually making his way to Pennsylvania. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrested Diaz- Vazquez there in 2018, at which time he admitted his prior removal and reentry. On September 25, 2019, a grand jury returned an indictment charging Diaz- Vazquez with one count of illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Diaz-Vazquez pleaded guilty to that charge on November 15, 2019. On February 20, 2020, the District Court sentenced Diaz-Vazquez to twenty-four months of imprisonment and one year of supervised release. The court ordered that the sentence run consecutively to Diaz-Vazquez’s seven- to twenty-year state sentence of imprisonment, though Diaz-Vazquez argued that his federal and state sentences should run concurrently. 2 Diaz-Vazquez timely appealed. His attorney seeks to withdraw because there is no viable basis for appeal. II.1 Under Anders, court-appointed counsel may — after finding any appeal “to be wholly frivolous” after careful examination of the record — file a brief “advis[ing] the court and request[ing] permission to withdraw” and identifying “anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.” 386 U.S. at 744. In evaluating a motion to withdraw, the Court’s inquiry is twofold: “(1) whether counsel adequately fulfilled [this Court’s] requirements” under Third Circuit Local Appellate Rule 109.2(a); and “(2) whether an independent review of the record presents any nonfrivolous issues.” United States v. Youla, 241 F.3d 296, 300 (3d Cir. 2001) (citations omitted). The withdrawing counsel’s brief must “satisfy the court that counsel has thoroughly examined the record in search of appealable issues” and “explain why the issues are frivolous.” Id. An appeal is frivolous if “the …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals