Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-14-01152/USCOURTS-ca3-14-01152-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mark A. Nixon
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

____________

No. 14-1152

____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

MARK A. NIXON,

 Appellant

____________

On Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. No. 04-cr-00037)

District Judge: Honorable Terrence F. McVerry

____________

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

April 29, 2015

Before: FISHER, HARDIMAN and ROTH, Circuit Judges.

(Filed: May 21, 2015)

____________

OPINION*

____________

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does 

not constitute binding precedent.

Case: 14-1152 Document: 003111969973 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/21/2015
2

HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge.

Mark Nixon appeals the District Court’s judgment of conviction and sentence. 

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Nixon’s counsel has filed a motion 

to withdraw. We will grant counsel’s motion and affirm the District Court’s judgment.

I

Nixon pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He was sentenced to 103 months’ imprisonment and

three years of supervised release.1 After being released from prison, Nixon violated the 

terms of his supervised release. The United States Sentencing Guidelines range for Nixon’s 

violation was 21 to 27 months, and the statutory maximum sentence was 24 months. On 

January 15, 2014, the District Court sentenced Nixon to 12 months’ imprisonment and 24 

months of supervised release. Nixon filed this timely appeal, and his counsel moved to 

withdraw.2

II

When counsel moves to withdraw, we ask whether counsel’s brief satisfies the 

Anders requirements and whether an independent review of the record presents any 

nonfrivolous issues. United States v. Youla, 241 F.3d 296, 300 (3d Cir. 2001). “The duties 

 

1 Various documents of record, including the briefs of Nixon’s counsel and the 

Government, state that Nixon’s term of incarceration was 108 months. As Nixon’s pro se 

brief correctly notes, his judgment of sentence was 103 months’ imprisonment.

2 The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3231 and 3583(e). We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Case: 14-1152 Document: 003111969973 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/21/2015
3

of counsel when 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.” Id. Here, counsel identified four potential grounds for appeal but 

claims they all lack merit. Nixon filed a pro se brief raising two additional arguments.

A

The first issue counsel identified is whether the District Court adequately considered 

Nixon’s mental illness. During the revocation hearing, the District Court learned that Nixon 

was taking Prozac prescribed by a medical doctor, and heard Nixon say that he would be 

willing to undergo a mental health evaluation and abide by any recommended treatment. In 

imposing Nixon’s sentence, the Court considered the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), 

including the need to provide Nixon with “medical care or other correctional treatment in 

the most effective manner.” App. B-55–56. The Court also stated that it would “make a 

recommendation to the Bureau of Prisons that the Defendant be evaluated for mental health 

treatment and evaluated as to whether Prozac is an appropriate prescription drug for him 

while incarcerated.” App. B-57–58. Thus, the record demonstrates that the District Court 

adequately considered Nixon’s mental health needs, and any challenge to his sentence on 

this basis would be frivolous.

The next issue counsel identified is whether Nixon’s Sixth Amendment rights were 

violated when the District Court denied his request to fire his attorney. The Court was 

informed the day before the revocation hearing that Nixon had fired his court-appointed 

Case: 14-1152 Document: 003111969973 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/21/2015
4

counsel. But after informing the Court during the hearing that he had not retained private 

counsel and would not be representing himself, Nixon said that he wanted to go forward 

with his court-appointed counsel. Nixon then repeatedly affirmed that he wanted courtappointed counsel to represent him.

We review a trial court’s refusal to substitute counsel for abuse of discretion, which 

occurs when “good cause is shown for the defendant’s dissatisfaction with his current 

attorney,” United States v. Gillette, 738 F.3d 63, 78 (3d Cir. 2013) (quoting United States 

v. Goldberg, 67 F.3d 1092, 1098 (3d Cir. 1995)). Nixon failed to provide the Court with 

any cause, much less good cause, for why he wanted to fire counsel, and then repeatedly 

assured the Court that he was comfortable and wished to proceed with counsel’s 

representation. In his pro se brief, Nixon states only that there were “conflict issues” with 

counsel and a violation of ethics rules, without further explanation. Pro Se Br. 4. We 

therefore conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Nixon’s 

initial request to fire counsel, and a Sixth Amendment challenge would be frivolous.

The third issue counsel identified is Nixon’s assertion that he was never advised 

after his original conviction that a violation of supervised release could result in a new 

prison sentence. Nixon has not pointed to anything in the record to support his claim, nor 

has our independent review found anything to support it. Like counsel, we conclude that 

there is no nonfrivolous argument on this basis.

The last issue counsel identified concerns whether the admission of hearsay evidence 

Case: 14-1152 Document: 003111969973 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/21/2015
5

during the revocation hearing violated Nixon’s due process rights. The Federal Rules of 

Evidence do not apply to revocation proceedings, and reliable hearsay is generally 

admissible. See United States v. Lloyd, 566 F.3d 341, 343–44 (3d Cir. 2009).

At the revocation hearing, the Court considered evidence from Nixon’s probation 

officer, as well as Nixon’s failed drug tests, his arrests, and his unsuccessful participation in 

a drug treatment program that led to his discharge. Nixon’s probation officer was present, 

and the Government proffered her testimony. The proffer set forth Nixon’s failure to report 

to the probation office several times, as well as his admission that he had used cocaine, 

marijuana, and heroin during his term of supervised release. After the proffer was made, 

the probation officer took the stand and testified that the proffer was accurate. Although 

Nixon was invited to question the officer, he declined. Nor did Nixon object to the other 

evidence relating to his violation of supervised release. 

The aforementioned evidence was reliable for several reasons. Regarding his failed 

drug tests, Nixon admitted that he had been addicted to heroin and had used cocaine and 

marijuana during his supervised release. The evidence surrounding his two arrests during 

the course of his supervision was also corroborated and sufficiently reliable. Finally, the 

evidence concerning Nixon’s behavior at the drug treatment program was reliable as well. 

The Government introduced a letter from the program’s lead counselor, which explained 

why Nixon was discharged from the program. Although Nixon did not object to this 

evidence, he denied the allegations during his testimony and claimed that he was discharged

Case: 14-1152 Document: 003111969973 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/21/2015
6

from the facility for different reasons than those provided by the counselor. Nevertheless, 

the Court did not make any specific findings regarding why Nixon had been discharged, 

only that he had been discharged from the program, which Nixon did not dispute.

B

In his pro se brief, Nixon identifies two additional potential grounds for appeal: (1) 

whether his sentence was reasonable and (2) whether the Court improperly relied on his 

need for drug rehabilitation in determining that incarceration was warranted. We will affirm 

a sentence imposed “unless no reasonable sentencing court would have imposed the same 

sentence on that particular defendant for the reasons the district court provided.” United 

States v. Tomko, 562 F.3d 558, 568 (3d Cir. 2009) (en banc). Here, Nixon was sentenced 

to 12 months’ imprisonment, which is below his Guidelines range of 21 to 27 months. The 

Court weighed the § 3553(a) factors, noting that a sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment 

was necessary to provide Nixon with structure, limit his access to illegal drugs, and impress 

upon him the seriousness of his conduct. Any argument challenging his sentence would be 

frivolous because the District Court sufficiently evaluated the relevant § 3553(a) factors 

and imposed a reasonable sentence.

Finally, Nixon argues that the District Court violated the Supreme Court’s holding in 

Tapia v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2382 (2011). There, the Supreme Court held that 

sentencing courts cannot impose or lengthen a prison term merely to facilitate an offender’s 

rehabilitation. Id. at 2391. As we have noted, Tapia does not prohibit judges from 

Case: 14-1152 Document: 003111969973 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/21/2015
7

mentioning rehabilitation during sentencing hearings. “Courts may still, for example, 

‘discuss[] the opportunities for rehabilitation within prison of the benefits of specific 

treatment or training programs.’” United States v. Zabielski, 711 F.3d 381, 391 (3d Cir. 

2013) (quoting Tapia, 131 S. Ct. at 2392). 

Here, the District Court explained that a sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment was 

necessary to provide structure, limit access to narcotics, and reflect the seriousness of 

Nixon’s offense. These considerations were proper. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A)–(D); 

see also United States v. Thornhill, 759 F.3d 299, 313 (3d Cir. 2014) (noting that the need 

to provide defendant with structure and to curb substance abuse were proper considerations 

under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)). While the Court also expressed its “sincere hope that this 

period of incarceration will aid [Nixon] in some degree to rehabilitation,” App. B-55, that 

aspiration is not prohibited under Tapia, so long as it does not serve as the sole rationale for 

imposing or lengthening a sentence. See Zabielski, 711 F.3d at 391. Because neither the 

District Court’s statement nor anything else in the record indicates that the Court imposed 

or lengthened a term of imprisonment merely to promote Nixon’s rehabilitation, this claim 

also fails.

III

For the reasons stated, we conclude that counsel’s brief meets the requirements of 

Anders. Our independent review of the record and our consideration of Nixon’s pro se brief 

confirm counsel’s view that there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we 

Case: 14-1152 Document: 003111969973 Page: 7 Date Filed: 05/21/2015
8

will grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the District Court’s judgment. Because 

the issues presented on appeal lack legal merit, counsel is not required to file a petition for 

writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court under Third Circuit Local Appellate

Rule 109.2(c).

Case: 14-1152 Document: 003111969973 Page: 8 Date Filed: 05/21/2015