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
5-8-2003 

# U S A v . D iehl 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 02-2570

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 . Die hl " (2003). 2003 D e cisio n s . P ape r 564. 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_2003/564NOT PRECEDE NTIAL UNIT ED STA TES C OURT OF A PPE AL FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT
No. 02-2570
UNITED S TATES OF AMERI CA

v. RINAL DO D IEHL, a/k/a Gabe Rina ldo D iehl,

Appellant
On A ppeal from the Un ited States District Co urt

for the Dis tri ct of New Jersey (D.C. Crimi nal No. 01-cr -00373-11) Distric t Judg e: Ho n. Jero me B . Sima ndle
Submitte d Pursuant to Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

April 1, 2003 BE FO RE : M cK EE , SM ITH and CO W EN , Circuit Judges (Fil ed: May 8, 2003)
OPI NION
CO W EN , Circuit

Judge
. Appellant

Rinaldo Diehland eleven co- defendants were charged i n a one-count indict ment with conspiracyto posses s and dist ribute a contr olled s ubstance i n violat ion of1 U.S .S.G . 4A 1.3 state s in relev ant pa rt that:

If re liable inf orm ation in dicate s that the crimin al history ca tegory sig nifica ntly over repres ents the se r iousness of the defendant ’s past criminal conduct

or the likel ihood th at t he de fe nd an t w ill c om m it o th er cr im es , th e c ou rt m ay c o nsider imposing a s entence departi ng from the otherwise appl icabl e guidel ine range
. 2 21 U.S.C. § 846. On October 26, 2001, Diehl ple d guilt y t o possessi ng more than fi ve grams o f cocaine base in violation o f 21 U .S.C. §§ 84 1(a)(1) and (b )(1)(B). Dieh l’s violat ion carried a poss ible term of impri sonment between 188 and 235 months under the relevant provi sions of t he United States Sentencing Guidel ines. Prior to sentenci ng, Dieh l mov ed fo r a do wn wa rd de partur e pur suan t to U .S.S.G . § 4A 1.3, arg uing that his crimin al history sig nifica ntly overre prese nts the s erious ness o f his co ndu ct. 1 The Distri ct Court decl ined to e xercis e its discr etion to depart f rom the guide lines , and on May 29, 2002, Diehl was sentenced to a pris on term of 188 months. The Distri ct Court f urther sentence d Diehl to a

five-y ear peri od of supervi sed rel ease to c ommence after hi s term of impris onment. This timel y appea l foll owed. The Distri ct Court ha d juri sdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231, and we exercis e juri sdiction under 28 U.S. C. § 1291. Diehl’s counsel has file d a brief pursuant to An ders v . Califo rnia , 386 U.S. 738 (196 7) stating that no non -frivo lous iss ues e xist fo r app eal. Th e U nited S tates ag rees w ith this repres entation. I n And ers , the Supreme Court est ablis hed that where a consci entious examinati on of the re cord convinc es counselrepres enting an indigent criminal defendant that no meritorious i ssues exi st for appeal, counsel mayseek to wit hdraw from further2 Ru le 109 .2(a) of the T hird C ircuit states :

Where, upon review of the dist rict court record, t

rialcounsel i s per suad ed that the appeal pre sen ts no issu e of eve n ar gua ble m erit, t ria l coun sel ma y file a mo tion to withdraw and supporting bri ef pursuant to An ders v . Califo rnia , 386 U.S. 738, 8 7 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) which s hall be served upon t he appell ant and the United States . The United St ates s hall f ile a brief i n response. Ap pell ant may also file a brief i n response pro se . After al l the briefs have been fil ed, the clerk will refer the case to a

merits panel. If the pane l agree s that the appe al is w ithout m erit, it will granttrial counsel’s And ers motion, and dispose of the appealwithout appoi nting new coun sel. If the p anel f inds a rgua ble m erit to the appe al, it will di scha rge co unse l, appoint s ubstit ute counsel , res tore t he case t o the cal endar, and order suppl emental brie fing
. 3 Diehl was provi ded the opport unity to fil e a pro se brief wit h this Court, but

has dec lined
. And ers , 386 U .S. at 74 4; L. A pp. R . 109.2 (a). D iehl inste ad co ntacte d his counsel and a sked thi s Court t o review the Distri ct Court’ s denialof his se ntenci ng motion, and whether the government was re quired to provide notice of the prior con victi ons relie d up on f or e nha nce me nt. 3 rep rese ntati on. Id. at 744 ; Un ited Sta tes v. Y oula , 241 F.3d 296, 299 (3d Cir. 200 1). 2 Our evaluation of an And ers brief c onsider s whether couns el has ade quatel y ful fill ed the requireme nts of L. A pp. R. 10 9.2(a), and w hether our ind epend ent review of the reco rd
rev eals any n on- friv olo us is sue s. Yo ula , 241 F .3d at 3 00; Un ited Sta tes v. M arvin , 211 F. 3d 77 8, 7 80 -8 1 ( 3d C ir. 2 00 0) . A sa tis fa cto ry And ers brief requires evidence t hat counsel has throughl y and cons cientiousl y exami ned the re cord for appea lable issues , and
an e xpl ana tion of w hy the issu es p rese nted are f rivo lou s. Yo ula , 241 F.3d at 300; M arvin , 211 F.3d at 780. It is not necess ary for counsel to “ra ise and reject eve ry pos sible claim ,” bu t the b riefmu st de mo nstra te a c ons cien tiou s rev iew of th e ca se. Yo ula , 241 F.3 d at 3 00. Af ter con siderin g the s ubm ission o f D iehl’s co unse l, 3 an d f ol lo win g ou r o wn4

independent

review of the present

record, we agree that

there are no non-frivolous issues for appeal . We note that the Dis tri ct Court e ngaged in a thorough coll oquy with Diehl prior to accepting his plea as required by Federal Rul e of CriminalProcedure 11. None of Diehl’s pre-t

rialmotions conce rned jurisdi ctiona l matt ers, and hence his right to appeal thes e ru ling s w as w aive d by h is ple a ag reem ent. Un ited Sta tes v. P anare lla , 277 F.3d 678 , 689 ( 3d C ir. 2002 ); Un ited Sta tes v. B entz , 21 F.3d 3 7, 38 (3d C ir. 1994). In addition, as t

he District Court acknowledged its discretion to depart from the Guidelines, but n oneth eless d eterm ined th at dep arture w as no t war ranted , we la ck juris diction to
con side r an app eal o f D iehl’ s sen tenc ing mo tion
. United States v. Marin- Castaneda , 134 F.3 d 55 1, 55 4 (3 d C ir. 19 98)
. Finall y, the Unite d States was not requi red to i nform Diehl in writing of the prior

convictions i t intended to re ly upon in seeki ng career offender enhancement under

U.S.S.G. § 4B1. 1, becausethe government did not s eek a sent ence beyo nd t he m axim um pro vid ed b y the sta tute. United States v. Day , 969 F.2d 39, 48 (3d Cir. 1992 ). For the for egoing rea sons, we fi nd that t he issue s rai sed in t

his appeallack l egal
me rit, an d fin d no oth er n on- friv olo us is sue s fo r rev iew . L. A pp. R . 109 .2(b ). Accordingly , we will grant couns el’s motion t o withdraw and affi rm the judgment of t he Distri ct Court e ntered on May 31, 2002.TO THE C LERK:

Please fi le the foregoing opi nion.

/s/ Robert E. Cowen United States Circui t Judge