2010 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 5-6-2010 

# U SA v . C h arles Hines 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 . 08-4310

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_2010

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 2010 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 . C h arle s Hine s " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1389. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1389NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR TS OF APP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 08- 4310 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. CH A RL ES H I N ES, 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. 2- 08- cr - 00013- 001) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H on. E duar do C . R obr eno Subm i t t ed on Thi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

on O ct ober2, 2009 B efor e: A M B R O , G A R T H and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed : M ay6, 2010)

O P I N I O N R O T H , C irc u it Ju d g e : C h a rle s H in e s p led g u iltyto v io latin g 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 (g )(1 ) (c o n v icte d f e lo n in pos s es s i on of fi r earm ) . H i nes w as s ent ence d t o 188 m ont hs ’ i m pr i s onm ent , a fi ve y ear18 U . S. C . § 924( e) ( 1) pr ovi des , i n r el evantpar t : “I n t he ca s e of a per s on w ho 1 vi ol at es s ect i on 922( g) of thi s t i t l e and ha s t hr ee pr i orconvi ct i ons . . . fora vi ol entfel ony o r a se ri o u s d rug o ff

en se, or b o th, com m itted o n o cc asio n s d iffe ren t from o n e a n o ther, s u c h p e rs o n s h a ll b e f

in e d u n d e r t h is title a n d im p ri s o n e d n o t le s s th a n f if te e n y e a rs . . . .” 2 p e rio d o f su p e rv ise d re lea se , a $ 1 ,0 0 0 f in e , an d a $ 1 0 0 sp e c ial a ss e ss m e n t. H e f iled th is t i m el yappea l and ar gues t he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed bybr eac hi ng t he t erm s of a w r i t t en gui l t ypl ea a gr eement . W e w i l l aff i r m t he j udgm entof convi ct i on and s ent ence . I . B ackground an d P roce dural H i s t ory H in e s e x e c u te d a w ri tte n g u ilty p le a a g re e m e n t s ta tin g , in tera lia , that the c o u rt m ayi m pos e a s t atut or ym axi m um s ent ence of 10 y ear s ’ i m pr i s onm entand thathe r et ai ns the righ t t o ap p ea l a sen tenc e e x ce ed ing the s tatu torym ax im u m . T h e D istri ct C o u rt acc ept ed H i nes ’ s gui l t ypl ea. I n pr epar at i on fors ent enci ng, t he U ni t ed St at es Pr obat i on O ffi ce subm i t t ed a P res entence Invest i gati on R epo rtreveal i ng - apparent l yfor the fir st ti m e in f ed era l cou rt- th at H ines ’s crim inal h ist o ryinclu d ed fo u r sep ara te st ate c o u rt convi ct i ons forpos s es s i on of a c ont r ol l ed s ubs t ance w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e. T he P rob ati o n O ff

ice stated that, u n d er the A rm ed C are er C ri m inal A ct, 1 8 U . S . C . § 9 2 4 (e), H i nes w as a ca r eercr i m i nal beca us e he ha d atl eas tt hr ee pr i orconvi ct i ons fora “s er i ous d rug o ff en se.” H ines ’s st atus as a ca ree r crim inal ren d ere d h im su b ject t o a m an d atory m in im u m se n ten c e o f

1 5 y e a rs’ im p riso n m e n t. 1 A ta M a y 2 2 , 2 0 0 8 h e a r i n g , u p o n l e a r n i n g o f H i n e s ’ s s t a t e c o u r tc r i m i n a l h i s t o r y, t he D i s t r i ctC our tor der ed the part i es t o expl ai n t he di s cr epanc ybetw een the 10- y ear m ax im u m sen tenc e re p rese n tat ion in the g u il typ lea a g ree m en t and the 1 5 -y ea r m an d atoryH i nes did no tw ai ve the r i gh tt o ap peal a s entence exce eding 10 y ears ’ 2 im p riso n m e n t. 3 m i ni m um s ent ence undert he A r m ed C ar eerC r i m i nal A ct . T he governm ents t at ed i tw as n o t aw a re o f

H in e s’s c rim in a l h isto rya t th e tim e it ex e c u ted th e g u iltyp lea a g re e m e n t, how ever , i tw oul d honori t s pr om i s e undert he agr eementand r ecomm end a s ent ence of 10 y ear s ’ i m pr i s onm ent . T he D i s t r i ctC our tpos tponed s ent enci ng. A ta J ul y25, 2008 hear i ng, defe ns e couns el r evea l ed thatH i nes knew of hi s car eer cri m i nal s t atus w hen he ex ecuted t he g uil t yplea agreem ent. H i nes argued t hat, becau se he ag reed t o w ai ve cert ai n ap pell at e ri gh t s i n return fo r a m axim um sent ence o f 10 y ears ’ 2 i m pr i s onm ent , t he courtw as “s tuck” w i t h t he t erm s of the agr eement . ( A pp. 71- 72. ) T he D i s t r i ctC our tdi s agr eed; t he courtadvi s ed H i nes t hathe coul d w i t hdr aw hi s gui l t ypl ea b e c a u se o f

th e e rro n e o u s s e n ten c in g re p re se n tatio n , b u t if h e c h o se n o t to w ith d ra w h is plea, he w ou l d recei ve at l eastt he m and at orym i nim um sent ence o f 15 y ears ’ i m pri sonm ent. T he D i stri ctC ou rtpo stpo ned sent encing t o all ow H i nes t i m e t o d i scuss h i s o p t i o n s w i t h c o u n s e l a n d f a m i l y. A tan O ct ober14, 2008 hear i ng, t he D i s t r i ctC our tagai n advi s ed H i nes of hi s r i ght t o w i t hdr aw hi s gui l t ypl ea. H i nes r efus ed. T he D i s t r i ctC our ti m pos ed a s ent ence of 188 m o n th s’ im p riso n m e n t. O n appea l , H i nes ar gues he w as ent i t l ed t o s peci fi c per form ance of the pl ea agr eementand the D i s t r i ctC our terr ed byi m pos i ng a s ent ence gr eat ert han the pl ea a g re e m e n t’ s e rr o n e o u s re p re s e n ta tio n o f a 1 0 -ye a r m a x im u m te rm o f im p ri s o n m e n t.4

I I . D i s cus s i on 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 u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 a n d 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 4 2 (a ). O u r r e v ie w is p le n a ry. U ni t ed Stat es v. R i char ds on , 3 1 3 F . 3 d 1 2 1 , 1 2 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). F e d e ra l R u le o f

C rim in a l P ro c e d u re 1 1 (b )(2 ) re q u ire s th a t a g u iltyp lea re p re se n t a vol unt aryand i nt el l i gentw ai verof the r i ghtt o a cr i m i nal t r i al . W hen a gui l t ypl ea agreem ent cont ai ns m i si nfo rm at i on abo ut a possi ble depri vati on of li berty , t he co urtm ust e v a lu a te th e v a lid ity o f

th e d e f e n d a n t’ s w a iv e r o f

c o n s titu tio n a l g u a ra n te e s . See U ni t ed S ta tes v . P o w e ll , 269 F. 3d 175, 185 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( m i s i nform at i on aboutper i od of s upervi s ed r el eas e w as harm l es s err or ) . U nderR ul e 11( h) , an err orw i l l be r egar ded as harm l es s “onl yi f the governm entcan e s t abl i s h t hatt he err ori s unl i kel yt o have a ffe ct ed a defe ndant ’ s w i l l i ngnes s t o w ai ve hi s orherr i ght s and ent era pl ea of gui l t y . ” P o w e ll , 269 F. 3d at185. T he governm enthas m eti t s bur den of e s t abl i s hi ng harm l es s err orbeca us e ( 1) H in e s k n e w o f

h is s tatu s a s a c a re e r c rim in a l w h e n h e e x e c u ted th e g u iltyp lea a g re e m e n t, an d (2) H ines ref

u sed to w ith d raw h is gu il typ lea a fter b eing ad v ised o f th e m an d atory m i nim um sent ence a nd recei ving ade qu at e t i m e t o co nsi der hi s opti on s. I I I . C oncl usi on F o r th e re a so n s s e t f

o rth a b o v e , w e w ill a f

f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.