arguable merit to the appeal, or that the Anders brief is inadequate to assist the court in its
review, [we] will appoint substitute counsel, order supplemental briefing and restore the
case to the calendar.” 3d Cir. L.A.R. 109.2(a). However, “we will not appoint new
counsel even if an Anders brief is insufficient” if the “frivolousness [of the appeal] is
patent.” Coleman, 575 F.3d at 321 (quoting Marvin, 211 F.3d at 781) (internal quotation
We are satisfied that Passarella‟s attorney has examined the record for appealable
issues and has explained why none of arguable merit exist. Counsel identified three
appealable issues: (1) the District Court‟s jurisdiction, (2) the voluntariness of
Passarella‟s guilty plea, and (3) the reasonableness of the District Court‟s sentence.
Counsel correctly argued that a challenge to any of the three would be frivolous.
First, the District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231, as Passarella was
charged with violating federal regulations, see 36 C.F.R. §§ 2.35(b), 4.21(c), which
provide for fines of up to $500 and/or terms of imprisonment not exceeding six months,
16 U.S.C. § 3; 36 C.F.R. § 1.3(a). Because Passarella‟s offenses were Class B
misdemeanors, see 18 U.S.C. § 3581(b), the Magistrate Judge had jurisdiction to enter a
judgment of sentence, 28 U.S.C. § 636(a) (authorizing United States magistrate judges to
enter sentences for “petty offenses”); 18 U.S.C. § 19 (defining a Class B misdemeanor as
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a).