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 4-16-2009 

# U SA v . T aibi ka D a wson 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 . 08-2155

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 . T aib i ka D a ws on" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1529. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1529NOT 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. 08- 2155 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. T AI BI KA DAWS ON, A ppel l ant A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C r i m i nal N o. 07- cr - 00316- 1) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J oel A . Pi s ano Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ar ch 26, 2009 B efor e: R E N D E L L , A M B R O and J O R D A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: A pr i l 16, 2009) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJ udge. T ai bi ka D aw s on appea l s t he entr yof a gui l t yver di ctagai ns thi m i n t he D i s t r i ct C o u rt f o r th e D istric t o f

N e w Je rse yf

o r p o ss e ss io n o f

a f ire a rm b ya c o n v icte d f

e lo n in vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . §§ 922( g) ( 1) - ( 2) . D aw s on’ s couns el m oved t o w i t hdr aw pur s uant2

t o A n d e rs v . C a lif

o rn ia , 386 U . S. 738 ( 1967) . B eca us e w e fi nd no non- fr i vol ous a r g u me n t s i n s u p p o r to f Da ws o n ’ s a p p e a l , we wi l l a f f i r m. A s w e w r i t e fort he bene fi tof the part i es , w e onl ybr i efl ys um m ar i ze the es s ent i al fac t s . I n 2006, T r ent on pol i ce of fi cer s on patr ol obs erved a gr oup l oi t er i ng i n t he fr ont y ar d of a r es i dence . U pon s hi ni ng a l i ghton t he gr oup, theyobs erved D aw s on hol di ng a b lac k h a n d g u n a t h is s id e . D a w so n ra n to w a rd th e f ro n t d o o r o f

th e re sid e n c e w h ile a tte m p tin g to c o n c e a l th e g u n , a n d d is o b e y e d p o lic e o rd e rs to s to p a n d s h o w h is h a n d s . T he off i cer s s aw D aw s on t os s s om ethi ng i nt o t he r es i dence . A ft era s t ruggl e, D aw s on w a s a rre ste d a n d a f

ire a rm w a s c o n f

isc a ted f ro m h is p e rso n . P o lice su b se q u e n tly re c o v e re d a se c o n d f

ire a rm f o u n d in p lain v iew in sid e th e d o o rw a y . A f ter a ju rytrial, D aw s on w as convi ct ed of pos s es s i on of a f i r earm bya pr evi ous l yconvi ct ed fe l on, and w as s ent ence d w i t hi n t he appl i cabl e U . S. Sent enci ng G ui del i nes r ange. W e cons t rue D aw son’s pro se a rg u m e n ts o n a p p e a l as c h a llen g e s to th e su f f icie n c yo f

th e e v id e n c e to c o n v ict h im a n d th e a d e q u a c yo f h is a p p o in ted c o u n se l. W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . U n itedS ta tes v . T

a n n is , 942 F. 2d 1 9 6 , 1 9 7 (3d . C ir . 1 9 9 1 ). U n d er A nd ers , i f court - appoi nt ed “c ouns el fi nds hi s cas e t o be w h o llyf riv o lo u s, a f

ter a c o n sc ien tio u s e x a m in a tio n o f it, ” h e m a yre q u e st p e rm iss io n to w i thdr aw acc om pani ed bya br i ef a l ert i ng the courtt o “anyt hi ng i n t he r ecor d t hatm i ght ar guabl ys uppor tt he appe al . ” A nd ers , 3 8 6 U .S . at 7 4 4 ; U n itedS ta tes v . Y

o u la , 241 F. 3d 296, 299 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . I n as s es s i ng an A nd ers br i ef, w e mustdet erm i ne: 1) w hether3

couns 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 hy an ysu ch issue s are frivo lou s; an d 2 ) “w h ethe r an ind ep en d en t r ev iew o f th e re co rd pr es ent s anynon- fr i vol ous i s s ues . ” Y o u la , 241 F. 3d at300. I f the A nd ers b ri ef ap p ea rs adequa t e on i t s fac e, w e w i l l confi ne ours crut i nyt o t he por t i ons of the r ecor d i dent i fi ed i n A pp el l ant’ s pro se bri ef an d C ou nsel ’s A nd ers b ri e f. I d. a t 3 0 1 . I n hi s br i ef, C ouns el r evi ew s w hathe cha r act er i zes as a “s t r ai ght forw ar d and s i m pl e” c as e, i n w hi ch the G overnm entpr oduced thr ee pol i ce of fi cerw i t nes s es , eac h of w hom t es t i fi ed t o s eei ng D aw s on i n pos s es s i on of a f i r earm . ( A nder s B r . at6. ) C ouns el r el at es t hatt he def

ens e’ s eff

or tt o s uppr es s fi r earm evi dence pr i ort o t r i al fai l ed w hen w itn e s s e s th e d e f

e n s e e x p e c te d to c o n tr a d ic t th e G o v e rn m e n t’ s w itn e s s e s f a ile d to a p p e a r. C ouns el al s o as s ert s t hatt her e ca n be no ar gum ent s r el at i ng t o admi s s i on of evi dence at trial b e c a u se D a w so n su c c e e d e d in th e o n lysig n if ica n t ru lin g w h e n th e C o u rt a g re e d to keep outevi dence of drugs and moneyatthe s cene . A s fors ent enci ng, C ouns el not es t hat the D i s tr i ctC our tr ej ect ed a f our - l evel upw ar d adj us t m entr ecomm ended i n t he Pr eSent ence R eport , and s ent ence d D aw s on atthe verybot t om of the r es ul t i ng gui del i ne r ange. U pon r evi ew i ng t he pr ocee di ngs fr om s t artt o fi ni s h, C ouns el concl uded that there w ere no n on -fr i vo l ou s avenu es for appea l . W e con cl ud e t hat C ou nsel ’s A nd ers br i ef i s adequa t e on i t s fac e, and ourexami nat i on of the r ecor d r el at i ng t o t he pr ocee di ngs des cr i bed byC ouns el r evea l s no non- fr i vol ous ar gum ent s . W e ther efor e l i m i tfur t her i nqui ryt o t he i s s ues r ai s ed byD aw s on pro se .4

T w o ad dit i on al argum ents are m ade b yD aw son in hi s pro se br i ef: thatthe G overnm ent ’ s pol i ce of fi cerw i t nes s es l acke d cr edi bi l i t y , and thatD aw s on r ece i ved i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el i n vi ol at i on of the Si xth A m endment . W i t h r egar d t o t he cr edi bi l i tyof w i t nes s es on appea l , w e do not“us urp t he r ol e of the j urybyw ei ghi ng cr edi bi l i tyand as s i gni ng w ei ghtt o the evi dence , ” U nited S tates v. W

ise , 515 F. 3d 207, 214 ( 3d C i r . 2008) . T he G overnm entpr es ent ed thr ee w i t nes s es t es t i fy i ng thatD aw s on w a s in p o ss e ss io n o f

a f ire a rm a n d it w a s f

o r th e ju ryto d e c id e w h e th e r to c re d it th is t es t i m ony . T hi s ar gum entacc or di ngl yl acks m er i t . A s forthe al l eged i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el , w e “ge ner al l ydo[] notr evi ew Si xth A m endmenti neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el cl ai m s on di r ectappea l . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. O l

f ano , 503 F. 3d 240, 246 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). T h e re is n o re a s o n h e re to d e p a rt f ro m th is g e n e ra l ru le . W e f in d n o n o n -f

riv o lo u s a rg u m e n ts in su p p o rt o f D a w so n ’s a p p e a l. C o u n se l is u n d e rn o o b l i g a t i o n t o f i l e a p e t i t i o n f

o rwr i to f

c e r t i o r a r i i n th e Un i t e d S t a t e s S u p r e me C o u rt . See T hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 109. 2( b) . W e w i l l aff i r m the j udgm entof the D i s t r i ct Co u r ta n d , i n a s e p a r a t e o r d e r , g r a n tCo u n s e l ’ s mo t i o n t o wi t h d r a w.