Background
Anthony Essing appealed his sentence following a guilty plea to a drug offense. His counsel moved to withdraw from representation and filed a brief under Anders v. California, arguing the district court lacked jurisdiction because Essing is a sovereign citizen and that the indictment was unconstitutional.
The court’s reasoning
The court concluded the district court had jurisdiction under Section eighteen thousand three hundred thirty-one of Title eighteen of the United States Code. Citing United States v. Hardin and United States v. Simonson, the court found sovereign citizen challenges to jurisdiction meritless. The court also held the indictment was constitutional under United States v. Hayes. After an independent review of the record under Penson v. Ohio, the court found no non-frivolous issues for appeal.
What it means going forward
The decision affirms the sentence and allows appointed counsel to withdraw from the case without pursuing further appeal.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download