United States v. Divine Zion

── United States v. Divine Zion ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Date: April 30, 2026 Category: General NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ____________ No. 25-1366 ____________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. DIVINE ZION, also known as Syrron Roach, Appellant ____________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Criminal No. 2:22-cr-00527-001) District Judge: Honorable Evelyn Padin ____________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) March 13, 2026 Before: KRAUSE, MASCOTT, and FISHER, Circuit Judges. (Filed: April 30, 2026) ____________ OPINION * ____________ FISHER, Circuit Judge. * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.  Divine Zion, a convicted felon, pled guilty to possession of a firearm and ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). His plea agreement provided that if he received a sentence between 30 and 37 months’ imprisonment, he would “not challenge his conviction for any reason by any means,” nor “challenge or seek to modify any component of his sentence for any reason by any means,” except in either event for “ineffective assistance of counsel.” 1 Zion was sentenced to 34 months and, despite his waiver of appellate rights, now appeals. His counsel argues there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal and moves to withdraw, providing a brief in accordance with Anders v. California. 2 Zion files a pro se brief. We will grant the motion to withdraw and affirm. 3 The Supreme Court promulgated guidelines in Anders “to assure that indigent clients receive adequate and fair representation” on appeal. 4 Defense counsel may file a motion to withdraw and an accompanying brief pursuant to Anders when counsel has reviewed the record and concluded that “the appeal presents no issue of even arguable merit.” 5 In such a case, the Court must first determine “whether counsel adequately fulfilled the rule’s requirements,” 6 which are (a) “to satisfy the court that he or she has thoroughly scoured the record in search of appealable issues[,]” and (b) “to explain why the issues are frivolous.” 7 Second, we must determine “whether an independent review of 1 App. 138–39. 2 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 3 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). When reviewing a brief filed under Anders, “we ‘exercise plenary review to determine whether there are any . . . [non-frivolous] issues’ and review factual findings for clear error.” United States v. Langley, 52 F.4th 564, 568 (3d Cir. 2022) (alteration in original) (quoting Simon v. Gov’t of Virgin Islands, 679 F.3d 109, 114 (3d Cir. 2012)). 4 United States v. Youla, 241 F.3d 296, 300 (3d Cir. 2001). 5 3d Cir. L.A.R. 109.2(a). 6 Youla, 241 F.3d at 300. 7 United States v. Marvin, 211 F.3d 778, 780 (3d Cir. 2000). 2 the record presents any nonfrivolous issues.” 8 An issue is frivolous if it “lacks any basis in law or fact”; 9 it is not frivolous if it is “‘arguable’ on its merits.” 10 At the first step, counsel has satisfied his obligation under Anders. The brief