T he ca s e i s unani m ous l yor der ed s ubm i tt ed w i thoutor al ar gum ent * pur s uantt o Fed. R . A pp. P. 34( a) ( 2) and 10th C i r . R . 34. 1( G ) . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . T he courtgener al l ydi s favor s the ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or derand j udgm entm aybe ci t ed underthe t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. M cC o n v il le’s tri al co u n sel fil ed an A n d ers b ri ef asse rt ing that there w ere 1 (c o n tin u e d ...) 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### D e c e m b e r4,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C lerk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ff – A ppel l ee, v. THO M AS H . M c CO NV I LLE, D e fe n d a n t –A p p e llan t. N o. 05- 2087 ( D. C. No . CF - 0 2 - 2 1 6 2 BB)

(D . N .M .)

OR DER AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e KELLY , M c KAY , and LU CE RO , C i rcui tJudg es. T h o m a s H . M c C o n v ill e , a/k /a R o b e rt J. M c C o n v ill e , ap p e a ls h is convi ct i ons and s ent ence forcons pi r i ng t o br i ng i l l egal al i ens i nt o the U ni t ed St at es i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 371 and 8 U . S. C . § 1324( a) ( 1) ( A ) ( i ) , and b rin g in g a lien s in to th e U n ited S tate s in v io latio n o f 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 4 (a )(2 )(B )(ii) and 18 U . S. C . § 2. M cC onvi l l e’ s couns el fi l ed a br i ef pur s uantt o A nder s v. C a l i fo rn i a , 3 8 6 U . S . 7 3 8 ( 1 9 6 7 ) , m o v i n g fo rl e a v e t o w i th d r a w a s c o u n s e l . We 1( . . . cont i nued) 1 no non- fr i vol ous i s s ues on appea l . W e r emoved tr i al couns el , and appoi nt ed the O ffice o f

th e F e d e ra l P u b lic d e fe n d e r fo r th e D istric t o f C o lo ra d o to re p re se n t h im o n ap p ea l. T h at office su b m itted a rev ised A n d ers b ri ef, ag ain a sserti n g that there a re n o n o n -f

ri v o lo u s is s u e s fo r o u r c o n s id e ra tio n . - 2 - GRANT c o u n s e l’ s m o tio n to w ith d ra w , AF F I RM M cC onvi l l e’ s s ent ence , and D I SM I SS h is a p p e a l. O n Sept ember10, 2002, bor derpatr ol agent s as s i gned t o the ar ea a r ound C ol um bus , N ew M exi co s t opped a va n headi ng W es ton N ew M exi co St at e R oad 9 . Insid e the v an w ere elev en P o li sh n ati o n als w h o h ad en tered the c o u n try i l l egal l y . Subse quenti nves t i gat i on s how ed thatthe part i es r es pons i bl e for o rg a n izin g th e ir e n tryin to th e U n ited S tate s w e re S tan ley P io tro w sk i, M c C o n v ill e , an d Ja d w ig a M c C o n v ill e , M c C o n v ill e ’s w ife . A ll th re e in d iv id u a ls w er e i ndi ct ed on one c ountof cons pi r i ng t o br i ng i l l egal al i ens i nt o the U ni t ed St at es dur i ng Sept ember2002 and tw o count s of br i ngi ng an i l l egal al i en i nt o the U n ite d S ta te s fo r th e p u rp o s e o f c o m m e rc ia l a d v a n ta g e a n d p ri v a te fin a n c ia l g a in . A juryco n v ict ed M cC o n v il le on all ch arg es, an d h e w as se n tenc ed to the statu tory m i ni m um : thr ee y ear s ’ i m pr i s onm ent . I n addi t i on, he w as al s o or der ed t o pay $ 3 0 0 in sp ec ial asse ssm en ts, an d su bjected to a th ree -y ea r pe ri o d o f su p erv isory release fo ll o w ing h is i m p ri so n m en t. A s a sp ec ial co n d it ion o f h is sup erv isory re le a s e , M c C o n v ille w a s p ro h ib ite d f ro m h a v in g a n yc o n ta c t w ith P io tr o w s k i. M cC onvi l l e has been r el eas ed fr om pr i s on, and i s curr ent l ys ervi ng the thr ee- y ear p e ri o d o f

s u p e rv is e d re le a s e .- 3 -

I f couns el cons ci ent i ous l yexami nes a ca s e and de t erm i nes thatanyappea l w oul d be w hol l yfr i vol ous , A nder s author i zes couns el t o s o advi s e the courtand re q u e st p e rm iss io n to w ith d ra w . Id . at 7 4 4 . C o u n se l m u st s u b m it a b rie f to b o th th e a p p e llate c o u rt a n d th e c lien t p o in tin g to a n yth in g in th e re c o rd th a t w o u ld pot ent i al l ypr es entan appe al abl e i s s ue. I d. T he cl i entm aythen choos e t o offe r anyar gum entt o the court . I d. I f the court , upon compl et el yexami ni ng the r e c o r d , d e t e rm i n e s th a tth e a p p e a l i s i n fa c tf r i v o l o u s , i tm a y g r a n tc o u n s e l 's r eques tt o w i thdr aw and di s m i s s the appe al . I d. I n the pr es entcas e, couns el pr ovi ded M cC onvi l l e w i th a copyof the A nder s br i ef, and M cC onvi l l e has chos en n o t to e x e rc is e h is ri g h t to s u b m it a p ro s e b ri e f in re s p o n s e . C o u n se l’s A n d e rs b rie f id e n tifie s tw o p o ten tiallya p p e a lab le is su e s. F irst, the di s tr i ctcourtadmi tt ed evi dence thatdur i ng a pr evi ous s t op atthe U ni t ed S tate s-M e x ico b o rd e r a g e n ts d isc o v e re d M c C o n v ill e w a s a ttem p tin g to ill e g a lly tr ans porta Pol i s h ci t i zen i nt o the U ni t ed St at es , and w as al s o carry i ng the l uggage of

tw o otherPol i s h nat i onal s w ho w er e att empt i ng t o i l l egal l yent erthe U ni t ed St at es on foot . T he governm entfi l ed a pr etr i al m ot i on i n l i m i ne s eeki ng t o admi tthi s evi dence underFeder al R ul e of Evi dence 404( b) forthe purpos e of s how i ng M cC onvi l l e’ s know l edge a nd i nt ent , comm on s cheme orpl an, orabs ence o f m ist ak e o r ac cide n t. M cC o n v il le fil ed n o resp o n se, an d the d istri ct co u rt g ra n ted th e m o tio n . B e c a u se M c C o n v ill e a lso fa iled to o bjec t to a d m iss io n o f th is ev iden ce w h en p rese n ted a t tri al, w e re v iew fo r plain e rror. “P lai n erro r oc cu rsR ule 404(b) provi des: 2 E vi dence of othercr i m es , w r ongs , oract s i s notadmi s s i bl e t o pr ove th e c h a ra c tero f

a p e rso n in o rd e r to sh o w a c tio n in c o n fo rm ity ther ew i th. I tm ay , how ever , be admi s s i bl e forotherpurpos es , s uch as pr oof of . . . opportuni ty , i nt ent , . . . pl an, know l edge, . . . or a b s e n c e o f

m is ta k e o r a c c id e n t. R u le 4 0 3 p ro v id e s: 3 A lth o u g h re lev a n t, ev id e n c e m a yb e e x c lu d e d if its p ro b a tiv e v a lu e is s ubs t ant i al l youtw ei ghed bythe dange rof unfa i rpr ej udi ce, confus i on of the i s s ues , orm i s l eadi ng the j ury , orbycons i der at i ons of undue del ay , w as t e of t i m e, orneedl es s pr es ent at i on of cumul at i ve evi dence . - 4 - w h en there is ( 1 ) error (2 ) th at i s p lai n , w h ich (3 ) affe cts th e p lai n ti ff ’s su b sta n tial rig h ts, a n d w h ich (4 ) se rio u slya ffe c ts th e fa irn e ss , inte g rity , o r p u b lic r eput at i on of j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs . ” U ni t ed St at es v. G onzal ez- H uert a, 403 F. 3d 7 2 7 , 7 3 2 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ). B a se d o n o u r re v iew o f th e re c o rd , the d istric t co u rt d idn o t p lain lye rr in admi tt i ng thi s evi dence . I tr eas onabl yconcl uded thatM cC onvi l l e’ s pr i or inv o lvem en t w ith assisti n g P o li sh n ati o n als att em p ti n g to en ter th e c o u n try i l l egal l y w as admi s s i bl e under R ul e 404( b) . Fur ther , the evi dence w as not 2 undul ypr ej udi ci al underR ul e 403. M cC onvi l l e w oul d be unabl e t o s at i s fythe 3 first p ro n g o f

th e p lain e rro r a n a ly sis , tha t th e re w a s e rro r. T h u s, w e a g re e w ith c o u n s e l th a t a n ya p p e a l o f th is is s u e w o u ld b e f ri v o lo u s . M cC onvi l l e’ s couns el i dent i fi es a s econd pot ent i al l yappea l abl e i s s ue: the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s or derthatM cC onvi l l e have no cont actw i th Pi otr ow s ki dur i ngM c C o n v ill e ’s r e lea se f ro m p riso n d o e s n o t re n d e r m o o t h is c h a llen g e to 4 the condi t i ons of hi s s upervi s ed r el eas e. See U ni t ed St at es v. T r an, 285 F. 3d 934, 9 3 6 n .1 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). - 5 - M cC onvi l l e’ s thr ee- y ear per i od of s upervi s ed r el eas e. I ti s undi s put ed thatthe 4 Pr es ent ence R eportdi d notr ecomm end i m pos i t i on of thi s s peci al condi t i on and th a t th e d istric t co u rt, w ith o u t p ro v id in g n o tice , im p o se d th e c o n d iti o n su a sp o n te dur i ng the fi nal m i nut es of the s ent enci ng hear i ng. I ti s al s o undi s put ed that M c C o n v ille fa ile d to o bje c t to th is c o n d itio n d u ri n g th e s e n te n c in g h e a ri n g . C ouns el ar gues M cC onvi l l e w ai ved hi s r i ghtt o appea l thi s condi t i on by fai l i ng t o obj ectbel ow . D efe ndant s do notnece s s ar i l yw ai ve thei rr i ghtt o appea l a s peci al condi t i on of s upervi s ed r el eas e w hen theyar e gi ven no pr e- tr i al not i ce of the pot ent i al i m pos i t i on of the condi t i on. See U ni t ed St at es v. B art s m a, 198 F. 3d 1191, 1198- 99 ( 10th C i r . 1999) ( ci t i ng Fed. R . C r i m . P. 32( c) ( 1) ) ( hol di ng thatfai l ur e t o obj ectdoes notw ai ve a s ent enci ng obj ect i on unl es s defe ndant r ece i ved not i ce s uffi ci entt o pr ovi de a meani ngful opportuni tyt o comm ent ) . T he di s tr i ctcourtdi d notpr ovi de ac tual not i ce, butnot i ce maybe ei theractual or c o n s tru c tiv e . S e e U n ite d S ta te s v . B a raja s , 3 3 1 F .3 d 1 1 4 1 , 1 1 4 4 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). C ons truct i ve not i ce i s pr ovi ded i f the condi t i on i m pos ed i s a r equi r ed or d iscreti o n aryco n d it ion o f su p erv ised release iden ti fied in 1 8 U . S . C . § § 3 5 8 3 (d), 3563( b) , orU ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i ne § 5D 1. 3. I d. at1154- 55. C ouns el ar gues thatM cC onvi l l e had c ons truct i ve not i ce ba s ed on § 5D 1. 3( c) ( 9) , w hi ch i ndi cat es thata s t andar d condi t i on of s upervi s ed r el eas e i s thatthe defendantm ay- 6 -

notas s oci at e w i th a convi ct ed fe l on unl es s gr ant ed perm i s s i on t o do s o bythe pr obat i on offi ce. A r guabl y , thi s pl ace d M cC onvi l l e on not i ce thathe mi ghtbe p ro h ib ite d f

ro m c o n ta c tin g P io tr o w s k i d u ri n g h is s u p e rv is o ry re le a s e p e ri o d . H ow ever , w e fi nd i tunnece s s aryt o r es ol ve thi s ques t i on; the condi t i on im p o s e d b yth e d is tr ic t c o u rtis n o t o n e th a t r e q u ir e s p re s e n te n c e n o tic e . “[N ]ot i ce of

a speci al con dit i on i s onlyrequi red w hen the co nd i t i on i m pli cat es a l i bertyi nt er es t , and ther e i s a l ack of anyobvi ous nexus betw een the condi t i on and the cr i m e of c onvi ct i on. ” U ni t ed St at es v. B ruce, 458 F. 3d 1157, 1167- 68 ( 10th C i r . 2006) . H er e, a s uffi ci entnexus exi s t s betw een the condi t i on i m pos ed on M cC onvi l l e – no cont actw i th hi s co- defe ndant– and hi s convi ct i on for cons pi r acyt o tr ans porti l l egal i m m i gr ant s i nt o the U ni t ed St at es . C ons pi r acy r equi r es s om e form of agr eementbetw een tw o i ndi vi dual s , w hi ch nec es s i t at es so m e fo rm o f

c o m m u n ica tio n . U n ited S tate s v . E v a n s, 9 7 0 F .2 d 6 6 3 , 6 6 8 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 2 ). T h e c o n d iti o n im p o se d e n su re s th a t M c C o n v ill e a n d P io tro w sk i w ill no tagree t o tr anspo rti l l egal al i ens aga i n d uri ng the thr ee-y ear s up ervi sed rel ease p e ri o d . F u rth e r, th e d istric t co u rt d idn o t ab u se its d isc re tio n in im p o sin g th is co n d it ion . “C o n d it ion s o f su p erv ised release , as o rde red b ythe d istri ct co u rt , are r evi ew ed forabus e of di s cr et i on. ” U ni t ed St at es v. Pugl i es e, 960 F. 2d 913, 915 (10th C i r. 19 92 ). D i stri ctcou rt s’ w i de lat i tud e t o im po se supervi sed rel ease con dit i on s i s subj ectt o cert ai n st atutorycon strai nts :- 7 -

[ A ] c o n d iti o n o f

su p e rv ise d re lea se m u st b e re a so n a b lyre late d to “the natur e and c i r cumst ance s of the offens e and the hi s t oryand ch ara cterist ics o f th e d efen d an t. ” 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 (a)(1). M o reo v er, th e c o n d iti o n m u st in v o lv e n o g re a terd e p riv a tio n o f lib e rtyth a n is r eas onabl ynece s s arygi ven the nee ds “t o affor d adequa t e det err ence t o cr i m i nal conduct , ” i d. § 3553( a) ( 2) ( B ) , “t o pr ot ectthe publ i c fr om furthercr i m es of the defendant , ” i d. § 3553( a) ( 2) ( C ) , and “t o pr ovi de the defendantw i th neede d educa t i onal orvocat i onal tr ai ni ng, m edi cal c a re , o r o th e r c o rr e c tio n a l tr e a tm e n t in th e m o s t e ffe c tiv e m a n n e r,” id. § 3 5 5 3 (a)(2)(D ). U ni t ed St at es v. E dgi n, 92 F. 3d 1044, 1048 ( 10th C i r . 1996) . A l though the d istri ct co u rtd id n o t m ak e fac tual fin d ing s reg ard ing this co n d it ion , the re co rd s how s the condi t i on i s r eas onabl yr el at ed t o the natur e and c i r cumst ance s of M cC onvi l l e’ s cr i m e. I taddr es s es hi s per s onal connec t i on and pr i orexper i ence s w ith h is c o -d e fe n d a n t, an d se e k s to a v o idc o n tin u a n c e o f c o n sp ira to ria l ac tiv ity w ith th is p a rticu larp e rso n . N o r a re w e c o n v in c e d th a t an yles se r c o n d iti o n w o u ld p ro v id e “ a d e q u a te d e te rr e n c e to c ri m in a l c o n d u c t.” 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a )( 2 )( B ). A ccor di ngl y , w e GRANT c o u n s e l’ s re q u e s t to w ith d ra w , AF F I RM M cC onvi l l e’ s convi ct i on, and D I SM I SS h is a p p e a l. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt C arlos F . L u ce ro C i r cui tJ udge