2005 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 6-6-2005 

# U SA v . D e L a C ruz 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 . 04-2780

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 a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

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 l l a nova 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 2005 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 nova 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 l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . D e L a C r uz " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1066. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/1066NOT 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. 04- 2780

UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. NI CO LAS D E LA C RU Z, a / k / a F EL I X BERNABE

N i col as D e La C ruz, A ppel l ant ON APPEAL FROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT CO UR T F O R T H E E A S T E R N D IS T R IC T O F P E N N S Y L V A N IA ( D i s t r i ctC our tC r i m i nal N o. : 02- cr - 00801- 16) D istri ct C o u rtJu d g e: H o n . H arv eyB artl e, II I Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ar ch 29, 2005 B efore: A L ITO , S M ITH , and R O S E N N , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: J une 6, 2005)

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT2

P E R C U R I A M: T hi s i s an appe al bydefe ndantN i col as D e La C ruz fr om a convi ct i on for par t i ci pat i ng i n a cons pi r acyt o di s t r i but e and pos s es s w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e one ki l ogr am or more of her oi n i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 846 and ai di ng and abe t t i ng t he pos s es s i on w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e more t han one ki l ogr am of her oi n i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . §§ 841( a) ( 1) . D e La C ruz pl ed gui l t yt o t he cha r ges pur s uantt o a bar gai ned- for pl ea a gr eement . C ouns el forD e La C ruz has fi l ed a br i ef unde rA nder s v. C al i forni a, 386 U . S. 738 ( 1967) , s t at i ng t hat , aft ercar eful r evi ew of the r ecor d, he ca nnotr ai s e any m er i t or i ous i s s ues and thatt he appe al i s w hol l yfr i vol ous . W e ar e s at i s fi ed thatcouns el h a s f u l f i l l e d h i s A n d e r s o b l i g a t i o n s , a n d w e a g r e e t h a tt h e a p p e a l i s f r i v o l o u s . We th e re f o re g ra n t co u n se l’s m o tio n to w ith d ra w a n d d ism iss th e a p p e a l. D e L a C ru z is p re c lu d e d f ro m b rin g in g a n a p p e a l p u rsu a n t to a w a iv e r c o n tain e d in h is plea a g ree m en t. “W aive rs of ap p ea ls, if en tered into k n o w ing lyan d v o lun tari ly , are val i d, unl es s t heyw or k a mi s carr i age of j us t i ce. ” U ni t ed St at es v. K hat t ak, 273 F. 3d 557, 563 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . T he s ent enci ng cour tr evi ew ed thi s pr ovi s i on w i t h D e La C ruz ext ens i vel y , ans w er i ng ques t i ons pos ed byt he def endantr egar di ng t he ef fec tof the w ai ver . D e La C ruz cont ends i n hi s pr o s e br i ef thathi s w ai verof appe al di d nots at i s fy t he r equi r ement s of K hat t ak bec aus e he onl yagr eed t o t he pl ea ba r gai n on t he condi t i on t hathi s couns el w oul d fi l e a mot i on pur s uantt o U . S. S. G . § 3B 1. 2, s eeki ng a four - poi nt re d u c tio n b a se d o n h is m in o r ro le in th e c o n sp ira c y . A lth o u g h c o u n se l d id n o t f ile th isT h is h o ld in g d o e s n o t p re ju d ice a n yin e f

f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f

c o u n se l cla im 1 ar i s i ng outof the negot i at i on of the w ai verpr ovi s i on t hatD e La C ruz mayr ai s e i n a su b seq u en t hab ea s p eti ti o n . S ee U n it ed S tat es v . T h o rnto n , 3 2 7 F . 3 d 2 6 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). m ot i on, couns el di d pr es entevi dence of D e La C ruz’ s m i norr ol e t o t he s ent enci ng j udge, and D e La C ruz’ s s ent ence of 84 m ont hs w as bel ow t he l ow erl i m i tof the s ent enci ng r ange thatw oul d have a ppl i ed had he r ece i ved a f ur t herdow nw ar d departur e, and w as al s o bel ow t he 10 y earm andat or ym i ni m um , a r educt i on m ade pos s i bl e byt he governm ent ’ s deci s i on t o fi l e a mot i on underU . S. S. G . § 5K . 1. T hi s di s cr epanc ydoes not p r e s e n ta n o n - f

r i v o l o u s i s s u e a s t o t h e v o l u n t a r i n e s s o f t h e wa i v e ro f

a p p e a l b e c a u s e De L a C ruz w as i nform ed dur i ng t he R ul e 11 col l oquyt hathe coul d onl ybe s ent ence d bel ow t he mandat or ym i ni m um i f the governm entfi l ed a § 5K . 1 m ot i on and thathe coul d appea l hi s s ent ence onl yi f he w as s ent ence d above the s t atut or ym axi m um ori f the s ent enci ng j ud ge err on eou sl ydep art ed u pw ard from t he o t herw i se appli cable guidel i nes. B ecause D e La C ruz w as s ent ence d bel ow t he s t atut or ym i ni m um , nei t herof the condi t i ons des cr i bed byt he pl ea a gr eementpr ovi di ng a r i ghtt o appea l i s s at i s fi ed, and the appe al m ustbe co nsi dered w ho l l yfri vo l ou s. 1 F o r t h e f o re g o in g re a s o n s , w e w ill a f f ir m th e ju d g m e n t o f

c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e . D efe ns e couns el ’ s m ot i on t o w i t hdr aw i s gr ant ed.