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
8-11-2008 

# U SA v . B rightwel l P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-4548

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . 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 a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

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

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" U SA v . B r i ghtwe l l " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 690. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/690NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL U N I TED STA TES C O U RT O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

__________ N o. 06- 4548

_________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. RI CH AR D B RI GH TW ELL, 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
. N o. 01- cr - 00033) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H on. R
. B ar cl aySur r i ck

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

on A pr i l 11, 2008
B efor e: SM I T H , H A R D I M A N and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: A ugus t11, 2008)2 O P I N I O N RO T H, C i r cui tJ udge: R icha r d B r i ght w el l appea l s t he or der s of the U
. S. D i s t r i ctC our tfort he Ea stern D i s t r i ctof P enns y l vani a, acc ept i ng document at i on of a pr evi ous convi ct i on forpurpos es of
s e n t e n c i n g , d e n y i n g h i s mot i o n f o ra p p o i n t me n to f

c o u n s e l , a n d d e n y i n g h i s m ot i on
r e q u e s t i n g r e c u s a l
. F o rt h e r e a s o n s d i s c u s s e d b e l o w, we wi l l a f f i r m. I . B ackground an d P roce dural H i s t ory A s t he fa ct s ar e w el l know n t o t he part i es , w e w i l l di s cus s t hem onl ybr i efl yher e. Fol l ow i ng a j ur yt r i al i n t he U
. S. D i s t r i ctC our tfort he East ern D ist ri ct of P enn sy l van i a, R i chard B ri gh t w el l w as con vict ed of possess i on of cocaine w i t h i nten t to d istrib u te, in v io latio n o f 2 1 U .S .C
. § 8 4 1 (a )(1 ), p o ss e ss io n o f a f ire a rm a s a f

e lo n , in vi ol at i on of 18 U
. S. C
. § 922( g) , and pos s essio n o f a f i r earm i n fur t her ance of a drug tra f f ick in g c rim e , in v io latio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 4 (c ). B rig h tw e ll w a s in iti a llyse n ten c e d in A pr i l 2003, but hi s s ent ence w as vaca t ed and the ca s e r emanded fol l ow i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 5 4 3 U .S . 2 2 0 (2 0 0 5 ). U n itedS ta tes v . B rig h tw e ll , N o. 03- 2001, 126 Fed. A ppx. 47 (3d C ir
. A p r. 1 9 , 2 0 0 5 ). A n ew sen tenc ing h ea ri n g w as h eld o n O ctob er 1 3 , 2 0 0 6
. T h e D istri ct C o u rt
s ent ence d B r i ght w el l t o 248 m ont hs i m pr i s onm ent (188 m ont hs fort he count s of coc ai ne pos s es s i on and fe l on i n pos s es s i on of a fi r earm , t o run concurr ent l y , pl us 60 m ont hs fort heT he t er m of i m pr i s onm enti m pos ed fol l ow i ng B r i ght w el l ’ s i ni t i al sen tence w as 322 1 m on t hs. B r i ght w el l had pr evi ous l ym oved forappoi nt m entof new couns el w hen r epr es ent ed by 2 anotherat t orne y . T he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed thatat t or ney ’ s m ot i on t o w i t hdr aw and a p p o in ted th e a tto rn e yw h o is th e su b jec t o f th e m o tio n a t issu e o n a p p e a l. 3 counto f p o sses sion of a fi r earm i n fur t her ance of drug t r aff i cki ng, t o be s er ved
cons ecut i vel y ) , t hr ee y ear s o f su p erv is ed r el eas e, a $17, 500 fi ne, and a $300 s peci al
a s s e s s m e n t. B ri g h tw e ll a p p e a le d , a lle g in g th re e e rr o rs .

1 B rig h tw e ll arg u e s f

irst th a t th e D istric t C o u r t e r r e d in d e ter m in in g th a t ce rta in document at i on w as an authent i c and cert i fi ed copy of a r ecor d of hi s 1963 m ur derconvi ct i on. A s a r es ul tof thi s convi ct i on, t he A r m ed C ar eerC r i m i nal A ct , 18 U
. S. C
. § 924( e) ( 1) , w as ap p lic ab le, tr igg ering a f ift ee n -y ea r m an d atorym inim u m sen tenc e f o r B ri g h tw ell ’s
c o n v ic tio n o f

p o s s e s s io n o f

a f ir e a rm a s a f

e lo n . Second, B r i ght w el l cl ai m s t hat the D ist r i ctC our terr ed w hen i tdeni ed hi s s econd
m o tio n f o r a p p o in tm e n t o f

c o u n se l. In h is m o tio n , B rig h tw e ll s ta te d th a t h is re latio n sh ip

2
w ith c o u n se l w a s “ n il” an d th a t “th e tru st f a c to r is a p ro b lem .” T h e D istric t C o u rt d e n ied th is
m o t i o n a f

t e r q u e s t i o n i n g Br i g h t wel l , who i n d i c a t e d t h a t h e wan t e d a d i f f e r e n t at t or ney b e c a u se h is c u rre n t co u n se l h a d m e re lya d o p ted th e a rg u m e n ts m a d e b y h is pr e v io u s c o u n se l. T hi r d, B r i ght w ell ass er t s t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n deny i ng hi s m ot i on for
re c u sa l. B rig h tw e ll o f

f e re d ten g ro u n d s f

o r h is m o tio n , inc lu d in g b ia s o r p re ju d ice w ith inB r i ght w el l as s er t ed that re cusal w as pr operpur s uantt o 28 U
. S. C
. § 455 beca us e 1) 3 “di s qual i fi cat i on of J udge due t o b ia s and pr ej udi ce; ” 2) t he D i s t r i ctC our tal l ow ed cont i nuance s t hat w er e i ncorr ect l y at t r i but ed t o B r i ght w el l ; 3) t he D i s t r i ctC our tw hi s per ed t o t he pr os ecut or th at he thoughtt hatB r i ght w el l w as goi ng t o pl ead gui l t y ; 4) atone poi nt t he D i s t r i ct C our t J udge and B r i ght w el l ’ s or i gi nal at t or ney pr act i ced i n t he s ame t ow n; 5) t he D istric t C o u rt in f

o rm e d B rig h tw e ll’s c o -d e f e n d a n t th a t h is a tto rn e y c o u ld n o t re p re se n t h im aft ert he att o rne y t es t i fi ed on B r i ght w el l ’ s behal f atan evi dent i aryhear i ng; 6) t he D i s t r i ct C ou rtJudg e “w ent i nto the room w here j urors w as [ sic ] be ing h eld a n d s e le c ted the ju rors that the d ef

ens e and pro sec u tor co u ld ch o o se f rom ;” 7) the P re-S en tenc e In v esti g ati o n R ep o rt ind icated that the d etail s reg ard ing o n e p rev iou s o ff en se w ere p en d ing , b u t th e D istri ct C o u rt se n ten c e d B rig h tw e ll a n yw a y w it h o u t i n v e s ti g a ti o n , t h e r e b ysh o w in g p re ju d ice to B rig h tw e ll; 8) B r i ght w el l t houghtt hatt he D i s t r i ctC our thad notr ead the Pr e- Sent ence I nves t i gat i on R e p o rt b e c a u se it i n d ica ted th a t h e h a d b e e n s e n te n c e d f o r o n e o f h is e a rlier o f

f e n se s o n ly o n e m o n th a f

te r b e in g a rr e s te d
. 4 t he me a n i n g o f 2 8 U. S. C. § 4 5 5
. Th e Di s t r i c t Cou r t d e n i e d Br i g h t wel l ’ s m ot i on as 3 “compl et el yfr i vol ous . ” II . A n a ly sis T he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on under18 U
. S
. C
. § 3231. W e have j ur i s di ct i on und er 2 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1291 and 18 U
. S. C
. § 3742. W e r evi ew eac h of B r i ght w el l ’ s poi nt s of
err ori n tur n. W e r evi ew t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs as t o t he authent i ci t yof the purpor t ed
recor d o f con vict i on for cl ear err or and it s l egal conclusi on s de novo
. U ni t ed Stat es v. G r i er , 4 7 5 F
. 3 d 5 5 6 , 5 7 0 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 7 ). B ri g h tw ell ’s prim aryarg u m en t i s tha t a de p u ty ’s si g n ature i s l acki ng on t he 1963 s ent ence s heet
. H ow ever , t he document at i on s ubm i t t ed t o s uppor tt he convi ct i on, obt ai ned at t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s r eques t , w as cert i fi ed by t he C l erk of the Super i or C our tof Ful t on C ount yas “a true, compl et e and c or r ectcopyof the or i gi nal i n s ai d cas e, as5

appea r s byt he ori gi nal on fi l e . . . ”, and B r i ght w el l di d notar gue thathe w as notconvi ct ed of the 1963 cr i m e. A s s uch, w e fi nd no cl earerr or i n t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s det erm i nat i on t hat B rig h tw e ll h a d b e e n c o n v icte d o f m u rd e r in 1 9 6 3 , as e v id e n c e d b y th e c e rtifie d c o p y o f h is convi ct i on. W e r evi ew t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deni al of B r i ght w el l ’ s r equest f o r n ew couns el for
a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . U

nited S t ates v. G oldberg , 6 7 F
. 3 d 1 0 9 2 , 1 0 9 7 (3d C ir
. 1 9 9 5 ). “[ I]n
or dert o w arr anta s ubs t i tut i on of couns el dur i ng t r i al , t he defenda ntm us ts how good caus e,
su c h a s a co n f

lict of in ter e st, a c o m p lete b re a k d o w n in c o m m u n ica tio n , o r a n irre c o n c ilab le confl i ct w i t h hi s at t or ney . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. W

e lty , 674 F. 2d 185, 188 ( 3d C i r . 1982)
. T he D istric t C o u rt is o b lig e d to “ d e c id e if th e re a so n s f

o r th e d e f

e n d a n t’s re q u e st f

o r su b stitu te
couns el c o n s t i tu t e g o o d c a u s e a n d a r e t h u s s u f f i c i e n t l ys u b s t a n t i a l t o j u s t i f ya c o n t i n u a n ce

. . . i n or dert o al l ow n ew counsel t o be obt ai ned. ” I d. at187. I n W

e lty , w e expl ai ned, “[ T ]he d istri ct c o u rt m u st e n g ag e in at l ea st som e inq u iryas to the re aso n fo r th e d ef en d an t’ s d iss a tisf a c tio n w ith h is e x istin g a tto rn e y . . . . ‘If th e re a so n s a re m a d e k n o w n to th e c o u rt, t he cour t m ay rul e w i t houtm or e. ’ ” I d. at187- 88 ( quot i ng B r ow n v. U ni t ed Stat es , 264 F. 2d 3 6 3 , 3 6 9 (D .C . C ir . 1 9 5 9 ) ( B u rg e r, J ., c o n c u rr in g in p a rt ))
. W e r ej ectB r i ght w el l ’ s ar gum entt hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tfai l ed t o m eeti t s obl i gat i ons i n t hi s cas e. I n hi s m ot i on, B r i ght w el l cl aim ed that hi s r el at i ons hi p w i t h hi s at t or neyw as “ni l ” and that“the trus tfac t or[w as ] a pr obl em. ” The D i s t ri ct C our tas ked B r i ght w el l at
s ent enci ng w hyhe w ant ed hi s couns el r emoved, and B r i ght w el l responded t hathi s l aw y erI n addi t i on, 28 U
. S. C
. § 144 pr ovi des , “W heneve ra part yt o anypr ocee di ng i n a di s t r i ct 4 cour tm akes and fi l es a t i m el y and s uffi ci ent aff i davi t t hat t he j udge befor e w hom t he mat t er i s p e n d i n g h a s a p e r s o n a l b i a s o r p r e j u d i c e e i t h e r a g a i n s t h i m o r i n f a v o r o f a n y a d v e r s e p a r t y, s uch j udge s hal l pr ocee d no fur t her t her ei n, but another j udge s hal l be as s i gned t o hears uch p ro c e e d in g .” 6 had adopt ed the ar gum ent s of hi s pr evi ous couns el and had “none of hi s ow n. ” I n t hi s cas e,
w e cannot s ay t hat t he D i s t r i ctC our tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n det erm i ni ng t hatt hes e r eas ons d id n o t w a rra n t th e a p p o in tm e n t o f n e w c o u n se l. W e r evi ew t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s deni al of B r i ght w el l ’ s m ot i on forr ecus al forabus e of d is c re tio n . A z ubuko v. R oyal , 443 F. 3d 302, 303 ( 3d C i r . 2006)
. B r i ght w el l s oughtr ecus al pur s uantt o 28 U
. S. C
. § 455, w hi ch pr ovi des , “A nyj us t i ce, j udge, orm agi s t r at e j udge of the U ni t ed St at es s hal l di sq u al i fyhi m s el f i n anypr ocee di ng i n w hi ch hi s i m par t i al i t ym i ght
rea so n ab lyb e q u esti o n ed
. ” 2 8 U
. S
. C
. § 4 5 5 (a). B ri g h tw ell m a k e s o n lyco n clus o ry 4
a lle g a tio n s a s to b ia s o r p re ju d ic e o n th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s p a rt . See Li t eky v. U ni t ed Stat es , 510 U
. S. 540, 555 ( 1994) ( expl ai ni ng t hat j udi ci al rul i ngs and r emar ks dur i ng t he cour s e of pr ocee di ngs gener al l ydo nots uppor ta bi as orpar t i al i t ym ot i on)
. T he gr ounds cit ed by B rig h tw e ll i n h is m o tio n d o n o t sug g e st th a t th e D istric t C o u rt’s im p a rtialityc o u ld re a so n a b ly be ques t i oned. A s such, w e fi nd no abus e of di s cr et i on i n t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deni al of B r i ght w el l ’ s m ot i on, and w e dec l i ne B r i ght w el l ’ s r equest to rem and the i s s ue forfur t her p ro c e e d in g s .7

I I I . C oncl usi on For t he r eas ons s etfor t h above, w e w il l affi r m t he j udgm entand s ent ence of the D is tr ic t C o u rt .