2009 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 2-23-2009 

# U SA v . Elli son 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 . 07-1903

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_2009

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 2009 D e c i sion s b y an author i 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 . Ell i s on" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1839. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1839NOT 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- 1903

__________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. L AR RY E L L I S ON, 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 E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C r i m i nal N o. 05- cr - 00619- 5) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e C ynthi a M . R ufe

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

on February6, 2009 B efore: R E N D E L L and R O T H , C i rcui tJudg es, and H A Y D E N , * D i s t r i ctJ udge. ( Fi l ed: February23, 2009)

__________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

__________

__________________ * H onor abl e K athar i ne S. H ay den, J udge of the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f

P e n n s y lv a n ia , s ittin g b yd e s ig n a tio n .2

R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJ udge. O n J une 9, 2006, L arr yE l l i s on ent er ed an ope n gui l t ypl ea t o t w o count s of know i ngl yand i nt ent i onal l ydi s t r i but i ng coca i ne bas e ( cr ack) i n vi ol at i on of Ti t l e 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) , ( b) ( 1) ( C ) . T he governm entpr es ent ed the fa ctual bas i s forthe pl ea a t t he s ent enci ng hear i ng, as s er t i ng t hatE l l i s on had s ol d cr ack c ocai ne t o an under cover offi ceron t w o occa s i ons . T he D E A l ab det erm i ned thatE l l i s on s ol d 0. 65 gr ams of cr ack on t he fi r s tocca s i on and 2. 4 gr ams of cr ack on the s econd. E l l i s on agr eed thathe had com m i t t ed these act s. T he P robat i on O ffi ce con cl ud ed, i n assess i ng E l l i son’s base offe ns e l evel undert he s ent enci ng gui del i nes , thatE l l i s on had bee n r es pons i bl e for d is tr ib u tin g 3 .0 5 g ra m s o f c ra c k . T h e D istric t C o u rt se n ten c e d E lli so n to 4 6 m o n th s’ in c a rc e ra tio n o n e a c h c o u n t, t o be s erved conc ur r ent l y , t hr ee y ear s of s upervi s ed r el eas e, a fi ne of $1, 200. 00 and a s peci al as s es s m entof $200. 00. E l l i s on t i m el yfi l ed a pr o s e appea l . E l l i s on’ s couns el has fi l ed a br i ef r eques t i ng perm i s s i on t o w i t hdr aw pur s uantt o A n d e rs v . C a lif o rn ia , 386 U . S. 738 (19 6 7 ), stat ing that h e is u n ab le t o fin d an yn o n -frivo lou s issue s fo r ap p ea l after a cons ci ent i ous r evi ew of the r ecor d. W e have j ur i s di ct i on under18 U . S. C . § 3742( a) and 28 U . S. C . § 1291. I n as s es s i ng an A nd ers br i ef, w e mustdet erm i ne: 1) w hethercouns el has t hor oughl yexami ned the r ecor d forappea l abl e i s s ues and has expl ai ned w hyanys uch i s s ues ar e fr i vol ous ; and 2) w hetheran i ndepende ntr evi ew of the r ecor d pr es ent s any3

n o n -f ri v o lo u s is s u e s . U

ni t ed Stat es v. Thom as , 389 F. 3d 424, 425 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( ci t i ng U n itedS ta tes v . Y

o u la , 241 F. 3d 296, 300 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ) . I f the A nd ers b ri ef ap p ea rs adequa t e on i t s fac e, w e r evi ew onl ythe por t i ons of the r ecor d i dent i fi ed i n t he br i ef a nd anyi s s ues r ai s ed byan appe l l anti n a pr o s e b ri e f. S e e Y o u la , 241 F. 3d at300. W e fi nd t hat coun sel ’s A nd ers br i ef i s adequa t e and, as E l l i s on has notfi l ed a pr o s e b rie f , itw ill gui de ouri ndepende ntr evi ew of the r ecor d. E lli so n ’s u n c o n d iti o n a l g u iltyp lea to tw o c o u n ts lim its th e a v a ilab ili tyo f a p p e llate re lief to c laim s: 1 ) th a t th e c o u rt lac k e d ju risd ictio n to a c c e p t th e p lea ; 2 ) th a t th e p lea is in v a lid u n d e r a p p lica b le s tatu to rya n d c o n stitu tio n a l sta n d a rd s; a n d 3 ) th a t th e se n ten c e is ille g a l. See U

ni t ed Stat es v. B r oce , 488 U . S. 563 ( 1989) . N one of thes e ca t egor i es of u n wa i v e d c l a i ms a p p l i e s h e r e . Th e Di s t r i c tCo u r th a d j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 1 8 U. S . C. § 3231 and a r evi ew of the pl ea c ol l oquyes t abl i s hes thatE l l i s on’ s gui l t ypl ea w as vol unt aryand know i ng i n compl i ance w i t h Fed. R . C r i m . P. 11 and B o y k i n v . A l a b a ma , 395 U . S. 238 ( 1969) . Fur t herm or e, a r evi ew of the s ent enci ng hear i ng tr ans cr i pt d e mo n s t r a t e s t h a tt h e Di s t r i c tCo u r tc o mp l i e d wi t h th e r e q u i r e me n t s o f F e d . R. Cr i m. P . 3 2 a p p lic a b le in E llis o n ’s c a s e . C ouns el i dent i fi ed one otherpot ent i al i s s ue: E l l i s on’ s al l egat i on thathi s tr i al couns el w as i neff

ect i ve. C ouns el , t hr ough hi s corr es pondence w i t h E l l i s on, s t at es that E l l i s on bel i eves t hathi s t r i al couns el w as i neff ect i ve bec aus e he di d notr eques tthatt he d ru g s a t issu e in h is g u iltyp lea b e w e ig h e d in d e p e n d e n tly . W e sh o u ld n o t en ter tain4

i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el cl ai m s on di r ectappea l , as the pr operavenue fors uch cl ai m s i s t hr ough a col l at er al pr ocee di ng i n w hi ch the fa ctual bas i s forthe cl ai m m aybe d e v e lo p e d . See U

ni t ed Stat es v. Thom as , 3 8 9 F .3 d 4 2 4 , 4 2 9 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). W e sh a ll d e f e r in e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f

c o u n se l cla im s to a c o llate ra l atta c k u n les s th e re c o rd is s u f f ic ie n t f o r u s to a d d re s s th e c la im o n d ir e c t a p p e a l. See U ni t ed Stat es v. Thornton , 327 F . 3 d 2 6 8 , 2 7 1 ( 3 d C i r . 2 0 0 3 ) . H e r e , th e r e c o r d i s i n s u f f i c i e n ti n th i s r e g a r d . A c c o r d i n g l y, a re v iew o f

E lli so n ’s d iss a tisf

a c tio n w ith c o u n se l is in a p p ro p ria te o n d ire c t ap p e a l. L as t l y , i n i t s br i ef, t he G overnm entobs erves thatE l l i s on addi t i onal l ym i ghthave r ai s ed an a r gum entt hathi s cas e s houl d be r emanded forr es ent enci ng beca us e a N ovember2007 amendm entt o t he s ent enci ng gui del i nes r educe d t he off ens e l evel s for cr ack, not i ng, how ever , t hatt hi s ar gum entm us tfai l . W e agr ee. T he s ent enci ng gui del i nes pr ovi de thatt he courtm us tus e the G ui del i nes M anual i n eff ecton t he dat e that t he def endanti s s ent ence d, unl es s doi ng s o w oul d vi ol at e the ex pos tf acto cl aus e of the C o n s titu tio n . See U . S. S. G . § 1B 1. 11. E l l i s on’ s bas e off ens e l evel w oul d have dr opped fr om 22 t o 20 undert he N ovember2007 amendm entt o s ect i on 2D 1. 1( c) ( 9) , and appl y i ng t he s ame 3- l evel r educt i on, t he appr opr i at e gui del i ne r ange w oul d have be en 37- 46 m ont hs , r athert han the gui del i ne r ange of 46- 57 thatthe D i s t r i ctC our tappl i ed pur s uant t o t he 2006 gui del i nes . W e conc l ude, how ever , thatthe D i s t r i ctC ourtcorr ect l yappl i ed th e 2 0 0 6 g u id e lin e s. F u rth e rm o re , the D istric t C o u rt e m p h a tica llysta ted th a t it re c o g n ize d th a t th e se n ten c in g g u id e lin e s w e re m e re lya d v iso rya n d it h a d b a se d its5

deci s i on heavi l yon an as s es s m entof the “f or t y - s even y ear s of [the def endant ’ s ] l i fe. ” (A p p . 1 2 0 ). F o r th e a b o v e re aso n s, this argu m en t w o u ld n o t sup p o rtan ap p ea l or a re m a n d . O uri ndepende ntr evi ew of the r ecor d y i el ds no othernon- fr i vol ous ar gum ent s t hat coul d s uppor tan appe al and w e ar e s at i s fi ed thatthe r equi r ement s of A nd ers have be en m e t. A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill A F F IR M th e ju d g m e n t o f th e D istric t C o u rt a n d , in a se p a ra te o rd e r, g ra n t c o u n s e l’ s m o tio n to w ith d ra w .

_____________