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 9-26-2008 

# U SA v . H arri son 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 . 06-1970

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 . H arr i s on" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 485. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/485NOT 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. 06- 1970 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v . WI L L I AM HAR RI S ON

a /k /a S L OAN AN DE RS ON

W i l l i am H arr i s 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 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 . C r i m i nal A ct i on N o. 03- cr - 00430) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Eduar do C . R obr eno Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

Sept ember25, 2008
B efor e: B A R R Y , A M B R O , and J O R D A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed Sept ember26, 2008)

OP I NI ON A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udge W i l l i am H arr i s on, al s o know n as Sl oan A nder s on, appea l s hi s convi ct i on andT h e D istric t C o u rt h a d ju risd ictio n u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 2 3 1 . W e h a v e a p p e llate 1 j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291. 2 s e n te n c e f

o r b e in g a f

e lo n in p o s s e s s io n o f

a f ir e a rm in v io la tio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 (g )( 1 ). H is at torn eyh as m o v ed to w ith d raw h is r ep rese n tat ion u n d er A n d e rs v . C a lif o rn ia , 386 U . S. 738 ( 1967) . W e gr antt he mot i on and af fi r m the convi ct i on and s ent ence . 1 A pol i ce of

fi cert es t i fi ed thatatar ound 5: 00 a. m . on Sept ember24, 2002, he s aw H arr i s on ( w ho w as carr y i ng an or ange ba g) fi r e a gun. H e cha s ed H arr i s on and, aft er t empora r i l yl os i ng s i ghtof hi m , caughthi m and arr es t ed hi m . A w i t nes s r es i di ng i n t he
ar ea t es t i fi ed thatatappr oxi m at el y5: 00 a. m . thatday , guns hot s w oke herup. A s s he l ooked outof herw i ndow , s he s aw s om eone runni ng, or ange ba g i n hand, and the runner to ss e d a n o b

jec t in to a v a c a n t lo t. T h e p o lice late r f o u n d a g u n in th e lo t. B eca us e H arr i s on w as a fe l on, he w as char ged, tr i ed and c onvi ct ed forbei ng a fel on i n p ossess i on of a f i rearm . T he D i stri ctC ou rtsent enced him t o 1 88 m on t hs’ i m pr i s onm ent . H arr i s on and hi s couns el have i dent i fi ed s ever al pot ent i al gr ounds for appea l : t he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n or der i ng H arr i s on t o s ubm i tt o a compet ency exami nat i on, s houl d nothave de ni ed H arr i s on’ s r eques tthathe be pe r m i t t ed t o r epr es ent hi m s el f, i ncorr ect l yadmi t t ed the w i t nes s ’ s 911 cal l , err ed i n deny i ng H arr i s on’ s m ot i ons fora new t r i al and foracqui t t al , and err oneous l yoverrul ed H arr i s on’ s obj ect i ons at s ent enci ng. H arr i s on fur t herar gues thathi s couns el w as i neff ect i ve. O urrul es pr ovi de that“[w ] her e, upon r evi ew of the di s t r i ctcour tr ecor d, tr i al
couns el i s per s uaded thatt he appe al pr es ent s no i s s ue of e ven ar guabl e mer i t , tr i al couns el3

m ayfi l e a mot i on t o w i t hdr aw and s uppor t i ng br i ef pur s uantt o A nd ers . ” 3 d Ci r . L AR 1 0 9 . 2 (a). “If

the p an el ag ree s tha t th e a p p ea l i s w ith o u t m erit , itw il l gran t tri al co u n sel’s A nd ers m ot i on, and di s pos e of the appe al w i t houtappoi nt i ng new couns el . ” I d. W e ar e s at i s fi ed thatcouns el has fi l ed an a dequat e A nd ers br i ef. Fur t her , w e agr ee th a t an yg ro u n d s f

o r a p p e a l ar e f

riv o lo u s. G iv e n th e ra m b lin g a n d c o n f u se d sta tem e n ts H a rr is o n m a d e to th e D is tr ic t C o u rt , th e C o u rt p ro p e rl yo rd e re d a c o m p e te n c yh e a ri n g . See 18 U . S. C . § 4241( a) . Fur t her , beca us e H arr i s on r efus ed t o ans w erques t i ons r el evant t o w hetherhe trul ydes i r ed t o r epr es enthi m s el f, under s t ood t he ca s e, and w as compet ent to s ta n d tr ia l, th e C o u rt p ro p e rl yd e c lin e d to a llo w H a rr is o n to re p re s e n t h im s e lf. See U nited S tates v. P epp ers , 3 0 2 F . 3 d 1 2 0 , 1 3 1

– 3 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). M o reo v er, th e C o u rt p rop erlyad m itted th e 9 1 1 ca ll u n d er F ed era l R u le of E v iden ce 8 0 3 (1) a n d (2). I n addi t i on, i tpr oper l ydeni ed the mot i ons fora new tr i al and foracqui t t al beca us e the
e v id e n c e w a s s u f

f ic ie n t to p e rm it a f

in d in g o f g u ilt b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t, s ee U ni t ed S ta tes v . B ro d ie , 4 0 3 F .3 d 1 2 3 , 1 3 4 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ), b e c a u se th e re w a s n o “ n e w ly d is c o v e re d ” e v id e n c e a n d th e f a c ts d o n o t s u g g e s t d ilig e n c e o n H a rr is o n ’s p a rt , s ee U ni t ed S ta tes v . Ja sin , 2 8 0 F .3 d 3 5 5 , 3 6 1 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 ), an d b e c a u se w e k n o w n o re a so n to c o n c lu d e (a s H a rr is o n a lle g e s ) t h a t th e p ro s e c u to r i n te n tio n a lly in tr o d u c e d f a ls e e v id e n c e . A s fors ent enci ng, the D i s t r i ctC our tpr oper l yfol l ow ed the pr ocedur es announce d i n our C our t ’ s deci s i on i n U

ni t ed Stat es v. G unt er , 462 F. 3d 237, 247 ( 3d C i r . 2006) , and the
u lt im ate se n tenc e is n o t un rea so n ab le. F inally , w e d ec li n e to c o n side r H arrison ’s in e f f e c tiv e -a s s is ta n c e -o f

-c o u n s e l c la im , w h ic h is in a p p ro p ri a te o n th is d ir e c t a p p e a l. See4

U ni t ed Stat es v. H

ayw ood , 1 5 5 F . 3 d 6 7 4 , 6 7 8 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e af fi r m the j udgm entof the D i s t r i ctC our tand gr ant c o u n s e l ’ s mo t i o n t o wi t h d r a w.