After an independent review of the record, including the presentencing report, the
resentencing transcript, and the parties’ briefs, we have determined that counsel has
satisfied his Anders burden and that no nonfrivolous issues exist from which to appeal.
The only potentially appealable issue correctly identified by counsel is Appellant’s
request that the district court “more faithfully” adhere to the requirements of § 3553(a). It
is clear that the district court faithfully adhered to and considered the § 3553(a) factors
and reasonably applied them to the circumstances of Appellant’s case. See United States
v. Cooper, 437 F.3d 324, 330-32 (3d Cir. 2006) (setting forth the test for review of a
sentence for reasonableness). The fact that the district court chose not to further reduce
Appellant’s sentence was logically explained and well supported, especially in light of
Appellant’s lengthy criminal history and recent homicide conviction.
Appellant argues pro se that his indictment and conviction are a nullity as a matter
of law due to Presentment and Enactment Clause procedural improprieties committed by
the 80th Session of Congress. This argument is without merit.
Because we have determined that this appeal does not present any nonfrivolous
issues, Appellant’s sentence is hereby affirmed, and counsel’s request for leave to
withdraw is granted. See 3d Cir. LAR 109.2(a) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. 738). We also
find that it is unnecessary to appoint counsel to file a petition for rehearing in this Court
The district court properly observed that Appellant did not make a formal motion
to depart downward. We note that this court, like other circuit courts, does not review,
after Booker, a district court’s decision to deny departure. See Cooper, 437 F.3d at 333