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 12-18-2008 

# U SA v . Li s a P hi llip 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 . 07-4303

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_2008

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 2008 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 . L i s a P hi ll ip " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 75. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/751 NOT 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- 4303 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. LI SA PH I LLI P, 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 M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia D i s t r i ctC our tN o. 07- cr - 00107 D i s t r i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e E dw i n M . K os i k Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

D ece m ber12, 2008 B e f o re : M C K E E , S M IT H , a n d R O T H , C i rcui tJud ges ( Fi l ed: D ece m ber18, 2008) OP I NI ON

S M IT H , C i r cui tJudge. O n M ar ch 12, 2007, a one c ounti nform at i on w as fi l ed i n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctT he D i stri ctC ou rthad j uri sdi ct i on pu rs uan tt o 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 23 1. W e exerci se 1 ap p ell ate jurisdicti o n u n d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 an d 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 7 4 2 (a). 2 C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia c h a rg in g L isa P h ili p a n d C a rl Jo h n so n w ith cons pi r i ng t o defr aud the U ni t ed St at es i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 371. T he i nform at i on a l l e g e d t h a tP h i l i p a n d J o h n s o n , t h e f a t h e ro f h e rc h i l d r e n , f

a i l e d t o r e p o r ti n c o me r ece i ved w hi l e theyw er e part i ci pat i ng i n a r ent al as s i s t ance pr ogr am adm i ni s t r at i on by t he U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof H ous i ng and U rban D evel opm ent . T he appl i cat i ons t hey compl et ed i n or dert o par t i ci pat e i n t he pr ogr am re qui r ed thatt heyr epor tal l i ncome. Y et th e yf a iled to re p o rt e ith e r Jo h n so n ’s in c o m e , o r th e a p p ro x im a te “ $ 5 0 0 p e r m o n th in r ent al i ncome der i ved fr om a hous e ow ned i n the name of [thei r ] daught er . ” D ur i ng a thor ough change of pl ea he ar i ng, Phi l i p pl eade d gui l t yt o t he i nform at i on. S h e a d mi t t e d s h e k n e w a b o u tb o t h J o h n s o n ’ s e a r n i n g s a n d t h e r e n t a l i n c o me . At s ent enci ng, t he D i s t r i ctC our ti m pos ed a tw o y earper i od of pr obat i on and or der ed that P h ilip m a k e re s titu tio n to ta llin g $ 1 5 ,4 7 3 .0 0 . Phi l i p appea l ed. Phi l i p’ s defe ns e couns el m oved t o w i t hdr aw pur s uantt o A nd ers 1 v . C a lif o rn ia , 386 U . S. 738 ( 1967) . I n A nd ers , t he Supr eme C our ts t at ed thatt he

“ c o n stitu tio n a l re q u ire m e n t o f su b sta n tial e q u a litya n d f a ir p ro c e ss ” m e a n s th a t ap p e llate cou nsel m ustactas an ad vo cat e for t he d efen dan t . 38 6 U . S . at74 4. T hu s, cou nsel ’s ro le a s a d v o c a te r e q u ire s th a t h e su p p o rt h is c lien t’s a p p e a l to th e b e st o f h is ab il ity . O f c o u rse, i f c o u n sel find s h is case to b e w h o ll yfrivo lou s, af ter a con sci enti ou s exam i nati on of it , he sho uld so adv i se the co urtand request p e r m i s s i o n t o w i t h d r a w . T h a tr e q u e s tm u s t , h o w e v e r , b e a c c o m p a n i e d b y a3

br i ef r efe r r i ng t o anyt hi ng i n t he r ecor d t hatm i ghtar guabl ys uppor tt he a p p e a l. I d. T he A nd ers br i ef, as w e expl ai ned i n U n ited S ta tes v . Y

o u la , 241 F. 3d 296, 300 ( 3d C i r . 2001) , m us tdemonst r at e thatcouns el has “thor oughl yexami ned the r ecor d i n s ear ch o f a p p e a l a b l e i s s u e s , ” a n d i tm u s t“ e x p l a i n w h y t h e i s s u e s a r e f r i v o l o u s . ” A c c o r d i n g l y, ouri nqui r yi s t w ofol d: ( 1) w hethercouns el adequa t el yful fi l l ed the r equi r ement s of A nd ers ; and ( 2) “w hetheran i ndepende ntr evi ew of the r ecor d pr es ent s anynonfr i vol ous i s s ues . ” I

d. ( ci t i ng U

n itedS ta tes v . M

a rv in , 2 1 1 F .3 d 7 7 8 , 7 8 0 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 0 )); see al so A nd ers , 386 U . S. at744 ( expl ai ni ng t hatt he courtm us tpr ocee d, “af t era ful l exami nat i on o f a ll the p roc ee d ing s, to d ec ide w h ethe r th e c ase is w h o ll yfrivo lou s”). P h ili p ’s c o u n se l h a s id e n tifie d th e o n lyb a se s f o r a p p e a l in lig h t o f

P h ili p ’s g u ilty pl ea: ( 1) an att ack upon the val i di t yof hergui l t ypl ea; and ( 2) a cha l l enge t o t he re a s o n a b le n e s s o f

h e r p ro b a tio n a ry se n te n c e . See U ni t ed Stat es v. B r oce , 488 U . S. 563, 570- 75 ( 1989) . C ouns el expl ai ned thatt he r ecor d s uppor t ed the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s fi ndi ng t hats he know i ngl yand vol unt ar i l yent er ed a pl ea of gui l t y . I n addi t i on, couns el poi nt ed outt hatPhi l i p admi t t ed dur i ng t he pl ea c ol l oquyt hats he knew aboutt he i ncome earned b yJo h n so n a n d f

ro m th e re n tal p ro p e rtyw h e n sh e c o m p lete d th e f o rm s to p a rticip a te in the re n tal assistan ce p rog ram . W ith reg ard to the rea so n ab lene ss o f h er p rob ati o n ary se n ten c e , co u n se l as se rts th a t sh e re c e iv e d th e m o st le n ien t o f se n ten c e s a n d th a t th e re is no bas i s forherchal l enge. W e agr ee thatt hes e i s s ues ar e fr i vol ous . T he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s pl ea c ol l oquy4

compl i ed w i t h t he mandat es of Feder al R ul e of Cri m i nal Pr ocedur e 11( b) and B oyki n v. A l a b a ma , 3 9 5 U. S . 2 3 8 ( 1 9 6 9 ) . I n a s mu c h a s P h i l i p a d mi t t e d s h e k n e w a b o u tt h e i n c o me sh e f a iled to re p o rt, th e re is a f a c tu a l b a sis f

o r th e p lea o f

g u ilty . N o r is th e re a n yb a sis fordi s turbi ng t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s pr obat i onarys ent ence , w hi ch w as i m pos ed af t ert he D is tr ic t C o u rt c o n s id e re d th e f a c to rs s e t f

o rt h in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ). W e r ecogni ze thatPhi l i p has t aken a dvant age of t he oppor tuni t yt o fi l e an i nform al b rie f a s p e rm itt e d b yo u r L o c a l A p p e llate R u le 1 0 9 .2 (b ). S h e c o n tes ts th a t th e re is evi dence t o pr ove hergui l t . She al s o as s er t s t hathercouns el err ed byfai l i ng t o adduce ot herevi dence t o s uppor theri nnocenc e. A s w e not ed above , how ever , t he gui l t ypl ea col l oquyes t abl i s hed a f actual bas i s forherpl ea, par t i cul ar l yi n l i ghtof her acknow l edgmentt hatt he r ent al i ncome “w enti nt o t he hous ehol d. ” W e conc l ude thatcouns el adequa t el yful fi l l ed the r equi r ement s of A nd ers . B eca us e ourow n i ndepende ntr evi ew of the r ecor d fai l s t o r evea l anynonfr i vol ous i s s ues forappea l , w e w i l l gr antcouns el ’ s m ot i on t o w i t hdr aw and af fi r m t he j udgm entof the D i s t r i ctC our tent er ed on O ct ober29, 2007. W e ce r t i fyt hatt he i s s ues pr es ent ed i n t he ap p ea l l ac k lega l m eritan d thu s d o n o t r eq u ir e the fil ing o f a p eti ti o n fo r w ri t of ce rt iorari w ith the S u p rem e C o u rt . 3 d C ir . L A R 1 0 9 . 2 (b).