OPINION *
Jacob Soto pleaded guilty to a single count of illegally possessing a machine gun in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o). After Sotos term of supervised release commenced, he was involved in a domestic dispute. He subsequently pleaded guilty to a simple assault charge in state court. A petition for revocation of supervised release followed.
At the revocation hearing, Soto admitted his violation of supervised release, accepted responsibility for his conduct, and acknowledged that he had been wrong. His aunt, with whom he and his two sons were living, testified that he had turned himself around, was gainfully employed, and was engaged in actively caring for his children. The District Court imposed a below-guidelines sentence of 12 months and one day of imprisonment.
Soto appealed.
1
His counsel filed, pursuant to Anders v. California, both a brief asserting that there were no nonfrivolous issues to raise on Sotos behalf and a motion to withdraw as counsel.
2
In United States v. Youla, we explained that 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.” 241 F.3d 296, 300 (3d Cir. 2001).
We are satisfied that counsel fulfilled these duties. Counsel established the District Courts jurisdiction, explained that the state guilty plea and Sotos admission during the revocation hearing satisfied the preponderance of evidence standard for finding a violation of supervised release, see United States v. Dees, 467 F.3d 847, 854-55 (3d Cir. 2006); 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3), and showed that the record supported the District Courts finding that Sotos admission of guilt was knowing and voluntary. Using a checklist and citations to the record as a supplement to the briefs narrative, counsel demonstrated the District Courts compliance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. Finally, counsel pointed out the lack of any basis for attacking either the procedural or substantive reasonableness of the below-guidelines sentence. See United States v. Bungar, 478 F.3d 540, 541, 542 (3d Cir. 2007).
We agree with counsels assessment that there are no issues of arguable merit to raise on Sotos behalf. Accordingly, we will grant counsels motion to withdraw and affirm the District Courts judgment. We certify that the issues presented in the appeal lack legal merit and thus do not require the filing of a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 109.2(b).
FOOTNOTES
1
. The District Court exercised jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3231 and 3583(e)(3). Appellate jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a).
2
. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). We exercise plenary review in determining whether the record presents any nonfrivolous issues. Simon v. Govt of V.I., 679 F.3d 109, 114 (3d Cir. 2012). Although the Clerks Office notified Soto of the opportunity to file an informal brief in support of his appeal, he did not file any submission for our review. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 109.2(a).
SMITH, Chief Judge.