2003 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 7-23-2003 

# U S A v . Quee n 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 n t i al D ocke t N o . 02-3970

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t 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 sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2003 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 sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" U SA v . Que e n " (2003). 2003 D e cisio n s . P ape r 347. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003/3471 NOT PRE CEDENT IAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT
No. 02-3970
UNITED S TATES OF AMERI CA

v. KE VI N Q UE EN , a/k/a “Y a Y a,” Appellant

____________ APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DIST RICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY (D.C. C rim 01-cr-00 615) Distri ct Judge: Honorable Mary Li ttl e Cooper

____________ Submitte d Under Third Circ uit L. A.R. 34.1( a)

July18, 2003 Be for e: M cK EE , BA RR Y, a nd W EIS , Circu it Judges
.

(Fil ed : Jul y 23 2003)

____________ OPI NION
W EIS , Circuit

Judge
. As a result o f a ple a barg ain w ith the p rosec ution, d efen dant p leade d gu ilty to on e cou nt of d istribution , and p osses sion w ith inten t to distribu te crac k-co caine , in violat ion of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)( 1) and (b) (1)(C). As part of the agreement, defendant2

stipu lated that h e w as a care er cr imin al.

The Distric t Cou rt senten ced th e def enda nt to 15 1 m onth s of im prison men t, a $50 0 fine , and a three-yea r term o f sup ervise d relea se. A t the de fend ant’s re ques t, his counsel fi led thi s appeal and, foll owing a revie w of the record, prepared an Anders brie f. Th e de fen dan t also filed a pr o se brie f on his o wn beh alf, r aisin g a n um ber of is sue s.

Defendant fir st al leges er ror becaus e counsel f

aile d to argue t

hat defendant was taking medi cine for mental i llnes s. Upon revi ew of the record, though, it appe ars that the District Cou rt was aw are of this fact, bu t nevertheless de clined a do wnw ard adjustment on the bas is of di minuti on of responsibili ty . As a result, t his Court lacks juris dicti on t o he ar su ch a disc retio nar y ruling
. United States v. McQuilken , 97 F.3d 723 (3d Cir . 199 6).

Insofar as defendant ’s ass erti ons can be consi dered as a c laim for ineffective ass ist ance of counsel , the matter is not properl y before the Court on direct appeal, but may berais ed in a moti on under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

Defe ndant also a lleges that the Co urt erroneou sly assigned criminal history points for convic tions that were 15 and 16 years old. However, because defendant was still serving senten ces fo r those crime s after M ay 1996 , they we re pro perly con sidere d in the Guidel ine computation. I n any eve nt, t he defendant would havebeen placed i n the
career criminal cat egory because of hi s other convictions and t

he sti pulati on in the pl ea agr eem ent.3 Defendant als o alle ges that he was “set up” by

the poli ce on August 30, 2002. Even if t

rue, t he assertion i s irrelevant because the defendant was se ntenced on t he basis of count one, which did not refer t o any i ncident on August 30, 2002. Rather, the jud gm ent r efe rred onl y to a sa le of crac k-c oca ine th at oc cur red on M ay 15 , 200 1.

Defendant als o contends t hat he shoul d have recei ved “credi t” for participating in a prof fer session. D efenda nt did not raise this issue in the District Cou rt and , mo reo ver , did not ente r into a co ope ratin g pl ea a gre em ent w ith th e go ver nm ent. This conte ntion must

be considered to have been wai ved. We find no plain err or in t he failu re to app ly a do wn wa rd d epa rture . See United States v. Brannan , 74 F.3d 448 ( 3d Cir. 1996 ). Defendant als o assert s error because defens e counsel f aile d to objec t to t

he offender desi gnation. However, the re cord demonstr ates t hat defens e counsel di d contend that t he c aree r of fen der statu s ov er-re pre sen ted th e de fen dan t’s ac tual c rimi nal h istor y. Over this objection, nonetheles s, the Distri ct Court found that the defendant had at least five predica te convictions w hich suff ices to establish career o ffende r status. The reco rd before u s refutes any claim o f inadequ ate representation b ecause tho se points w ere spe cific ally rais ed a nd c aref ully co nsid ered
.

Finall y, defendant poi nts out that i ndividual s with more extensive criminal hist ories have recei ved downward departures . Plai ntiff submits no evidence of analogous
cases to sup port tha t allegatio n and , theref ore, it lack s me rit.4 We have studied t

he record of t

he plea hearing and thesentenci ng proceed ings and f ind no erro r.

Accordingly , we will affirm the Judgement of t he District Court , and grant defense counsel ’s moti on to withdr aw. The issues presented in thi s appeal l ack legal merit and, thus, co unsel is not requ ired to file a petition for certiorariwith the S upr eme Co urt. See Third Circ uit L. A.R. 109.2. Insofar as the first c ontenti on of the cl aim of inadequate repres entation may beconsidered, i t willbe reserved for anysecti on 2255 motion that defendant

may fi le.5

______________________________ TO THE C LERK:

Please fi le theforegoing Opini on.

/s/ Jo sep h F . W eis, Jr
. United States Circui t Judge