2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 2-6-2008 

# U SA v . B elche r P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-1341

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . Belche r " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1639. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1639NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

____________ N o. 07- 1341

____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. J AM ES C. BEL CHER, A ppel l ant

____________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 06- cr - 00154) D istric t Ju d g e : W ill iam W . C a ld w e ll

____________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J anuary11, 2008 B e f o re : F IS H E R , H A R D IM A N a n d S T A P L E T O N , C i r cui tJudges .

( Fi l ed: February6, 2008)

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________ F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudge . T h is a p p e a l ar ise s o u t o f Ja m e s B e lch e r’s g u iltyp lea to p o ss e ss io n o f c h ild p o rno g rap h yin v iolati o n o f 1 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 2 A (a)(5)(B ), an d the D istri ct C o u rt ’s su b se q u e n t se n ten c e o f

7 8 m o n th s im p riso n m e n t. A f ter f ili n g a tim e lyn o tice o f

a p p e a l,T he PSR di d notr ecomm end a dow nw ar d adj us t m entforA cce pt ance of 1 R es pons i bi l i tybas ed on numer ous comm ent s B el cherm ade thatm i ni m i zed hi s l evel of re s p o n s ib ility, in c lu d in g a s ta te m e n t th a t v ie w in g c h ild p o rn o g ra p h ys h o u ld n o t b e ille g a l. A l though B el cheri ni t i al l yobj ect ed t o thi s om i s s i on, he di d notobj ectatthe s ent enci ng hear i ng. 2 B el cher ’ s couns el fi l ed a br i ef a nd m ot i on t o w i thdr aw r epr es ent at i on pur s uantt o A nd ers v . C a lif o rn ia , 3 8 6 U . S . 7 3 8 (19 6 7 ). F o r th e re aso n s tha t fo ll o w , w e w il l gran t cou n sel’s A nd ers m ot i on and af

fi r m the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s j udgm entof s ent ence .

I. W e w r i t e exc l us i vel yforthe part i es , w ho ar e fa m i l i arw i th the fa ctual cont extand l egal hi s t oryof thi s cas e. T her efor e, w e w i l l s etfor th onl ythos e fa ct s nece s s aryt o our analy si s. O n Ju n e 2 1 , 2 0 0 6 , B e lch e r p lea d e d g u iltyto o n e c o u n t o f p o ss e ss io n o f

c h ild pornogr aphy . T he U ni t ed St at es Pr obat i on O ffi ce pr epar ed a Pr es ent ence I nves t i gat i on R eport( “PSR ”) , w hi ch the D i s tr i ctC our tadopt ed w i thoutanychange s . U t i l i zi ng the appl i cabl e U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i nes ( “G ui del i nes ”) , i tdet erm i ned thatthe To t a l Of f e n s e Le v e l wa s 2 7 . Th e b a s e o f f e n s e l e v e l f

o ra v i o l a t i o n o f

1 8 U. S . C. § 2252A ( a) ( 5) ( B ) i s 18, and the s peci fi c off ens e cha r act er i s t i cs , i ncl udi ng the age of the chil dren i nv olved i n the fi l m s, the u se of a co m pu t er, and the n um ber of im ages, nece s s i t at ed a 9- l evel i ncr eas e. A ddi t i onal l y , B el cher ’ s pr i orconvi ct i on fori nvas i on of 1 pr i vacypl ace d hi m i n C r i m i nal H i s t oryC at egoryI I . B as ed on thes e ca l cul at i ons , the advi s oryG ui del i nes r ange w as 78 t o 97 m onths i m pr i s onm ent . A ccor di ngl y , the D i s tr i ctT hi r d C i r cui tL ocal A ppel l at e R ul e 109. 2( a) pr ovi des that“[w ] her e, upon r evi ew 2 of the di s tr i ctcourtr ecor d, tr i al couns el i s per s uaded thatthe appe al pr es ent s no i s s ue of even a r guabl e mer i t , tr i al couns el m ayfi l e a mot i on t o w i thdr aw and s uppor t i ng br i ef pur s uantt o A n d e rs v . C a lif o rn ia , 3 8 6 U . S . 7 3 8 , 8 7 S . C t. 1 3 9 6 , 1 8 L . E d . 2 d 4 9 3 (19 6 7 ), w h ic h s h a ll b e s e rv e d u p o n th e a p p e lla n t a n d th e U n ite d S ta te s .” 3 C our ti m pos ed a 78- m onth s ent ence . I tal s o i m pos ed a f i ne and s peci al as s es s m ent t ot al i ng $600, and s upervi s ed r el eas e fora t erm of l i fe. B el cherfi l ed a t i m el ynot i ce of appea l . C oncl udi ng thatther e w er e no nonfr i vol ous i s s ues t o appea l , B el cher ’ s couns el fi l ed a mot i on t o w i thdr aw and a s u p p o r t i n g b r i e f. W e e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 a n d 1 8 U. S . C. § 3 7 4 2 (a). II. I n A n d e rs v . C a lif

o rn ia , the S u p rem e C o u rth eld th at “if c o u n sel find s h is [cli en t’ s app eal ] t o b e w ho l l yfri vo l ou s, aft er a consci enti ou s exam i nati on of it , he sho uld so advi s e the courtand r eques tperm i s s i on t o w i thdr aw . ” 386 U . S. at744. I n doi ng s o, couns el m us ts ubm i ta br i ef a ddr es s i ng anyi s s ue that“mi ghtar guabl ys uppor tthe appea l . ” I

d. ; see al so L .A .R . 1 0 9 .2 (a ). W e m u st th e n d e ter m in e w h e th e r th e a p p e a l is 2 “w hol l yfr i vol ous . ” A nd ers , 386 U . S. at744. I n m aki ng thi s det erm i nat i on, w e eva l uat e: “( 1) w hethercouns el adequa t el yful fi l l ed the rul e’ s r equi r ement s ; and ( 2) w hetheran i ndepende ntr evi ew of the r ecor d pr es ent s anynonfr i vol ous i s s ues . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Y o u la , 2 4 1 F . 3 d 2 9 6 , 3 0 0 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ).4 A. U nderthe fi r s tpr ong of thi s i nqui ry , couns el m us t“s at i s fythe courtthatcouns el has thor oughl yexami ned the r ecor d i n s ear ch of a ppeal abl e i s s ues , and . . . expl ai n w hy the i s s ues ar e fr i vol ous . ” Y o u la , 241 F. 3d at300. I n hi s br i ef, couns el addr es s ed thr ee p o ss ib le is su e s: (1 ) w h e th e r th e D istric t C o u rt h a d ju risd ictio n to tak e B e lch e r’s g u ilty pl ea a nd i m pos e s ent ence ; ( 2) w hetherthe gui l typl ea w as val i d; and ( 3) w hetherthe D i s tr i ctC our tpr oper l ycal cul at ed the s ent ence and the s ent ence w as r eas onabl e. C ouns el al s o pr ovi ded an e xpl anat i on as t o w hyeac h of thes e i s s ues ar e fr i vol ous . H avi ng r evi ew ed couns el ’ s br i ef a nd the ac company i ng m at er i al s , w e conc l ude thathe has sa tisf ied th is re q u ire m e n t. B. A ft erconcl udi ng thatcouns el has s at i s fi ed the fi r s tpr ong, w e mustthen r evi ew t he r ecor d and det erm i ne w hetheranynonfr i vol ous i s s ues forappea l exi s t . “[A ] n appea l on a m a tter o f law is f riv o lo u s w h e re ‘[ n o n e ] o f th e leg a l p o in ts [ a re ] a rg u a b le o n th e ir m er i t s . ’ ” Ne i t

z ke v . Wi l l i a ms , 490 U . S. 319, 325 ( 1989) ( quot i ng A nd ers , 386 U . S. at 744) . A l though ourr evi ew i s i ndepende nt , i f the A nd ers br i ef a ppear s t o be ade quat e on its f a c e , a “ c o m p le te s c o u ri n g o f th e re c o rd ” is u n n e c e s s a ry. Y o u la , 2 4 1 F .3 d a t 3 0 1 . I ns t ead, w e ca n al l ow the A nd ers b ri e f to g u id e o u r r e v ie w . I

d. I n the pr es entcas e, cou nsel ’s A nd ers b r i e f

i s a d e q u a t e o n i t s f

a c e , a n d th u s , i twi l l g u i d e o u rr e v i e w.5

Fi r s t , couns el r ai s es the i s s ue of the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s j ur i s di ct i on t o conduct B el cher ’ s pl ea c ol l oquyand i m pos e s ent ence . H ow ever , he es t abl i s hed thatthi s i s s ue l acks m er i tbeca us e the D i s tr i ctC our thas j ur i s di ct i on “of a l l offe ns es agai ns tthe l aw s of th e U n ited S tate s” p u rsu a n t to 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 2 3 1 . T h e re f o re , the D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rly exerci sed j uri sdi ct i on ov er the p l ea and sent encing p roceedings. S ec o n d , co u n sel raises the issue o f w h ethe r B elch er’s g u il typ lea w as v ali d . F o r a gui l typl ea t o m eetthe cons t i tut i onal r equi r ement s es t abl i s hed i n B o y k i n v . A la b a ma , 395 U . S . 2 3 8 (19 6 9 ), an d the s tatu toryreq u ir em en ts of F ed era l R u le of

C ri m inal P roc ed u re 1 1 , w e h a v e s t a t e d th a t , d u r i n g th e p l e a c o l l o q u y:

“ T h e c o u rt m u st a d v ise th e d e f e n d a n t, i n ter a lia, o f

th e w a iv e r o f

c e rta in c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts b yv irtu e o f a g u iltyp lea , the n a tu re o f th e c h a rg e s to w hi ch he ors he i s pl eadi ng gui l ty , the maxi m um pos s i bl e pena l tyt o w hi ch he ors he i s expos ed, the court ’ s obl i gat i on t o appl ythe Sent enci ng Gu i d e l i n e s [ a n d ] . . . d i s c r e t i o n t o d e p a r tf r o m th o s e g u i d e l i n e s u n d e rs o me ci r cumst ance s , and the t erm s of anypl ea- agr eementpr ovi s i on w ai vi ng the ri g h t t o ap p ea l or t o co ll aterall yatt ac k the s en tenc e. . . . T h e d istri ct co u rt mu s te n s u r e th a tth e d e f e n d a n tr e c e i v e s th e s e c a v e a t s , u n d e r s t a n d s th e m, a n d s t i l l w i s h e s o f

h i s o rh e ro w n v o l i t i o n t o p l e a d g u i l ty. U ni t ed Stat es v. Schw ei t

z er , 454 F. 3d 197, 202- 03 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( i nt ernal quot at i on ma r k s a n d c i t a t i o n s o mi t t e d ) . Af t e rr e v i e wi n g th e r e c o r d o f th e p l e a c o l l o q u y , we concl ude thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tthor oughl yadvi s ed B el cherof al l of the above i s s ues , and B el cheri ndi cat ed thathe under s t ood the cons equenc es of hi s pl ea. T her efor e, thi s i s s ue lac k s m e rit.A s a r es ul t , w e conc l ude thati ti s notnece s s aryt o appoi ntcouns el t o fi l e a 3 pet i t i on forr ehea r i ng i n t hi s C our tora pet i t i on forw r i tof ce r t i or ar i i n the U ni t ed St at es S u p re m e C o u rt o n B e lc h e r’ s b e h a lf. See L . A . R . 1 0 9 . 2 (b). 6 Fi nal l y , w e agr ee w i th couns el thatno nonfr i vol ous i s s ues exi s tas t o the D i s tr i ct C our t ’ s s ent enci ng of B el cher . T he D i s tr i ctC ourtpr oper l ycal cul at ed the G ui del i nes r a n g e o f 7 8 t o 9 7 m o n th s a s r e q u i r e d b y U ni t ed Stat es v. G unt er , 462 F. 3d 237, 247 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). M o reo v er, B elch er’s sen tenc e w as n o t un rea so n ab le un d er U ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 5 4 3 U .S . 2 2 0 (2 0 0 5 ), an d its p ro g e n yb e c a u se th e D istric t C o u rt a d e q u a tely c o n s id e re d th e 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f a c to rs in d e te rm in in g B e lc h e r’ s s e n te n c e . See U ni t ed Stat es v. C ooper , 437 F. 3d 324, 329 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . A ccor di ngl y , ouri ndepende ntr evi ew o f th e re c o rd d e m o n stra tes th a t B e lch e r h a s n o n o n f riv o lo u s is su e s f

o r a p p e a l. III . F or these reasons, w e w i l l grantdefe nse cou nsel ’s A nd ers m ot i on and af fi r m t he se n ten c e im p o se d b yth e D istric t C o u rt. 3