Not Precedential

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_______________
No. 15-1882
_______________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
JONATHAN BROWNLEE,
Appellant
_______________
On Appeal from the District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(Crim. No. 3-10-cr-00176-001)
District Judge: Honorable Malachy E. Mannion
_______________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
December 8, 2015
Before: FUENTES, SHWARTZ, and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges
(Filed: January 22, 2016)
_______________
OPINION
____________
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
FUENTES, Circuit Judge:

Jonathan Brownlee appeals the order of the District Court revoking his supervised
release and sentencing him to nine months imprisonment followed by an additional term
of supervised release. Brownlees counsel has moved to withdraw under Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that Brownlees appeal contains no nonfrivolous
issues. Brownlee has filed a pro se brief challenging his revocation sentence. We will
grant counsels motion to withdraw and affirm the order of the District Court.1
I.
Brownlee pleaded guilty to a one-count indictment arising from the receipt and
distribution of child pornography and was sentenced to 60 months imprisonment and
20 years supervised release.2 Shortly after Brownlees release from incarceration, the
Probation Office determined that Brownlee had violated the terms of his supervised
release and petitioned the District Court for a warrant for his arrest.
Brownlees
purported violations included (i) four failed drug tests, (ii) failure to submit complete and
truthful reports regarding his income, (iii) failure to notify his employer of his criminal
history, (iv) possession of unapproved computing equipment, and (v) failure to complete
sex offender treatment.
The District Court conducted a violation hearing on March 26, 2015, during which
The District Court had jurisdiction to revoke Brownlees term of supervised release
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3583(e). We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to
28 U.S.C. 1291 and 18 U.S.C. 3742(a).
1
Brownlee was convicted pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 2252(a)(2).

2
Brownlees counsel and the government announced that they had reached an agreement to
resolve Brownlees alleged violations. Under the agreement, Brownlee would admit to
using controlled substances and to failing to report his income, and would not contest the
violation pertaining to his failure to complete sex offender treatment; in turn, the
government would not pursue any other violations.3 At the conclusion of the hearing, the
District Court sentenced Brownlee to a new term of nine months incarceration followed
by nineteen years and four months of supervised release.
Brownlee now challenges the judgment of the District Court.
II.
We begin by considering whether counsels brief fulfills the Anders requirements
and whether our own independent review of the record reveals any nonfrivolous issues
for appeal.4 Counsels duties in preparing an Anders brief are (1) to satisfy the court that
counsel has thoroughly examined the record in search of appealable issues, and (2) to
explain why the issues are frivolous.5 We review a district courts decision to revoke
supervised release for abuse of discretion.6 We examine a district courts imposition of a
sentence following revocation of supervised release for reasonableness in view of the
App. Vol. II at 3234.
United States v. Youla, 241 F.3d 296, 300 (3d Cir. 2001).
Id.
United States v. Maloney, 513 F.3d 350, 354 (3d Cir. 2008).
3
relevant statutory sentencing factors.7

The Anders brief satisfies us that all possible issues for appeal are frivolous. The
brief explains that the District Court had jurisdiction; the plea colloquy was adequate;
Brownlees waiver of rights was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent; and the sentence
imposed was procedurally and substantively reasonable.8 Our independent review of the
record reveals nothing to the contrary.
In his pro se brief, Brownlee argues that he has evidence that, while never
reviewed or considered by the District Court, undermines the basis for his guilty plea as
to two of the three specifications to which he pleaded guilty.9 He claims that a probation
officer falsely accused him of failing to report income and that he was illegally
discharged from court-mandated sex offender treatment by his therapist after his health
insurance lapsed.10
In the final analysis, these claims do not comport with Brownlees decision to
plead guilty and to admit the bases of his violations to the District Court. A district court
may revoke a term of supervised release if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence
that the defendant violated a condition of supervised release.11 We have explained that
7
United States v. Bungar, 478 F.3d 540, 54243 (3d Cir. 2007) (discussing the
sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)).
See Anders Counsels Br. at 1420. The District Courts sentence was within the
Guidelines range of 511 months. See App. Vol. II at 31:1221.
8
Def.s Br. at 8.
10
Id. at 89.
11
18 U.S.C. 3583(e)(3).
4
this standard is far lower than that necessary to be adjudged guilty of a crime, since a
district court need only be reasonably satisfied that [a defendant] has violated one of the
conditions.12 During his plea colloquy, Brownlee admitted to failing to report income,
albeit with the caveats that he didnt think it was that important and that his failure was
an honest mistake.13
Likewise, Brownlee castigated his therapist at the colloquy,
claiming that he submitted false reports and threatening to sue him for malpractice.14
Even so, Brownlee admitted that he technically had failed to complete sex offender
therapy.15 His counsel also told the District Court that Brownlee felt he was discharged
in his view improperly by the therapist,16 and the District Court declined to make any
factual findings on the issue.17
In view of all the facts discussed during the hearing, and in light of Brownlees
own admissions, we conclude that the District Court had sufficient evidence before it to
revoke Brownlees supervised release and to impose its sentence.
III.
Counsels brief satisfies the requirements of Anders. Our independent review of
12
United States v. Poellnitz, 372 F.3d 562, 566 (3d Cir. 2004) (quoting United States v.
Manuszak, 532 F.2d 311, 317 (3d Cir. 1976)).
13
App. Vol. II at 48:1219.
14
Id. at 54:1724.
15
Id. at 35:1314.
16
Id. at 33:1215.
17
Id. at 65:2023.
5
the record confirms counsels belief that there are no nonfrivolous issues on appeal.
Therefore, we will grant counsels motion to withdraw and affirm the District Courts
revocation of supervised release and imposition of a new sentence.18
18
Appellant is hereby advised that under the Criminal Justice Act, counsel is not
obligated to file a petition for rehearing in this Court or a petition for writ of certiorari in
the United States Supreme Court. See also LAR 35.4, 109.2(b). If Appellant wishes to
pursue these avenues, he must do so pro se. Appellant should note that a petition for
rehearing en banc must be filed within 14 days of the entry of judgment; if that time has
passed, Appellant may promptly file a motion to enlarge the time for such filing. Counsel
shall timely send a copy of this Opinion to the Appellant.
6

Not Precedential

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Not Precedential

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Not Precedential

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FUENTES, Circuit Judge:

Brownlee was convicted pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 2252(a)(2).

App. Vol. II at 3234.

relevant statutory sentencing factors.7

Likewise, Brownlee castigated his therapist at the colloquy,

App. Vol. II at 48:1219.

You might also like