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 Third C ircuit 7-21-2010 

# U SA v . Horace S mith P re c e de nt i al or Non-P re c e de nt i al : Non-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t No . 09-2565

F o llow thi s and a ddit ion al works at : http://digit alc ommon s .l a w . vill anova . e du/thirdc ircuit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s brought t o you for f re e and ope n a c c e s s by the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C ourt of Appe al s for the Third C ircuit at V ill anova U nive rsity S choo l of L a

w Digit 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 by an authori z e d a dmini s trat or of V ill anova U nive rsity S choo l of L a

w Digit al Reposit ory

. F or more inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vill anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . H ora c e S mith" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 923. http://digit alc ommon s .l a

w . vill anova . e du/thirdc ircuit_2010/923NOT 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. 09- 2565

___________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. HO RA CE SM I TH a /k / a SM I TTY H or ace Sm i th, 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 . C . C r i m i nal N o. 1- 08- cr - 00377- 002) D i s tr i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e Sy l vi a H . R ambo

___________ Subm i tt ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay20, 2010 B E F O R E : F U E N T E S , H A R D IM A N , and N Y G A A R D , C i rcui tJudg es. ( Fi l ed: J ul y21, 2010)

___________ OPINI ON O F THE COURT

___________ N Y G A A R D , C i r cui tJ udge.2

H o ra c e S m ith a p p e a ls th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s 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 . C ouns el forSm i th has fi l ed a br i ef, pur s uantt o A n de rs v . Sta te o f C a lif o rn ia , 38 6 U. S. 738 ( 1967) , cl ai m i ng thatthi s appea l pr es ent s no non- fr i vol ous i s s ues , and s eeki ng perm i s s i on t o w i thdr aw as couns el i n thi s cas e. Sm i th al s o fi l ed a pr o s e br i ef. Forthe r eas ons thatfol l ow w e w i l l aff i rm the D i s tr i ctC ourt ’ s j udgm entof convi ct i on and s e n te n c e , a n d w e w ill g ra n t c o u n s e l’ s m o tio n to w ith d ra w . O n J anuary28, 2009, Sm i th pl eade d gui l tyt o cr i m i nal cons pi r acyt o di s tr i but e and p o s s e s s w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te c o c a in e h y d ro c h lo ri d e , in v io la tio n o f 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 6 . T he D i s tr i ctC ourts ent ence d Sm i th t o 160 m onths of i m pr i s onm entand thr ee y ear s of s upervi s ed r el eas e. T he D i s tr i ctC ourtor der ed Sm i th t o paya fi ne of $2, 500 and a s peci al asses sm ent of $1 00 . S m i th fil ed a ti m el yno t i ce of app eal . W e app oint ed A l an M . R oss, E s q u ir e , to re p re s e n t S m ith o n a p p e a l. I . O urexami nat i on of an A nd ers b rie f f o c u se s u p o n w h e th e r c o u n se l h a s b o th th o ro u g h lysc ru tin ize d th e re c o rd f o r iss u e s th a t co u ldb e a p p e a led , an d p ro p e rly expl ai ned w hyal l s uch i s s ues ar e w hol l yfr i vol ous . W e al s o r evi ew the r ecor d our s el ves to m a k e a n in d e p e n d e n t e v a lu a tio n . U n itedSta tes v . Y

o u la , 2 4 1 F . 3 d 2 9 6 , 3 0 0 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). In hi s A nd ers br i ef, couns el i dent i fi es fi ve pot ent i al gr ounds forappea l : ( 1) the D i s tr i ctC ourt ’ s j ur i s di ct i on, ( 2) the vol unt ar i nes s of Sm i th’ s pl ea, ( 3) the l egal i tyofIn h is b rie f S m ith a lso re itera tes h is re q u e st f o r a p p o in tm e n t o f

n e w c o u n se l, 1 w hich he o ri ginal l yexp res sed i n a m oti on fi l ed o n O ct ob er 26, 20 09 . W e w i l l add res s this i ssu e in a sep ara te ord er. 3 S m ith ’s s e n ten c e , (4 ) w h e th e r th e G o v e rn m e n t b re a c h e d its p lea a g re e m e n t b yf a ili n g to fi l e a U . S. S. G . § 5K 1. 1 m ot i on, and ( 5) w hetherthe G overnm ent ’ s deci s i on t o char ge a c o -d e f e n d a n t w ith a d if

f e re n t o f f e n s e w a s u n

ju s t tr e a tm e n t o f

S m ith . S m ith in d e p e n d e n tly ra is e s in h is p ro s e b ri e f e s s e n tia lly th e s a m e S e c tio n 5 K 1 .1 m o tio n is s u e a lr e a d yb ro u g h t u p b yc o u n s e l. H e a ls o c la im s in e f f e c tiv e n e s s o f

c o u n s e l. 1 W e w ill b ri e f

ly re v ie w e a c h is s u e . W i th regard t o jur i sdi ct i on , w e no t e that Sm i th w as charged w i th fed eral off enses, a n d h e p lea d e d g u iltyto 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 6 . F e d e ra l d istric t co u rts h a v e ju risd ictio n o v e r a ll offe ns es agai ns tthe U ni t ed St at es under18 U . S. C . § 3231. H ence , j ur i s di ct i on w as p rop er. C o n c e rn in g th e v a lid ityo f h is g u iltyp lea , S m ith c a n d e m o n stra te n o e rro r o n th is re c o rd . T h e D is tr ic t C o u rtth o ro u g h ly p ro b e d S m ith ’s u n d e rs ta n d in g o f th e p ro c e e d in g s . Itin f o rm e d h im th a t h e w a s e n title d to p le a d n o t g u ilty a n d to h a v e a ju ry h e a r h is c a s e . U p o n th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s in q u iry , S m ith in d ic a te d th a t h e u n d e rs to o d th e p le a a g re e m e n t. T h e D istric t C o u rt c o n f irm e d th a t S m ith h a d a d e q u a te o p p o rtu n ityto c o n f e r w ith h is a tto rn e y . F in a lly, S m ith to ld th e D is tr ic t C o u rtth a t h e w a s s a tis f ie d w ith h is a tto rn e y . O urr evi ew of the r ecor d m akes cl earthatthe D i s tr i ctC ourtthor oughl ycover ed both the pr ocedur al r equi r ement s of Feder al R ul e of Cri m i nal Pr ocedur e 11, and the cons t i tut i onalA d d iti o n a lly , w e n o te th a t th e D istric t C o u rt re m o v e d a n e n h a n c e m e n t re latin g to 2 a s tun gun pos s es s ed bySm i th atthe t i m e of hi s arr es tbecaus e of unc ert ai ntyaboutthe le th a lity o f

th e g u n . 4 m andat e of e ns ur i ng thatgui l typl eas ar e know i ng, vol unt ary , and i nt el l i gent . T her e i s no is s u e o f m e ri t a s to th e v a lid ity o f S m ith ’s g u ilty p le a . C o u n sel n ex t r aised the leg ali tyo f S m ith ’s sen tenc e. T h e D istri ct C o u rt ’s cal cul at i on of the s ent ence , w hi ch w as bas ed on the s t i pul at i on out l i ned i n the pl ea a g re e m e n t, w a s p ro p e r. A s to S m ith ’s c a re e r o f f e n d e r sta tu s th e D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rly 2 det erm i ned, pur s uantt o U . S. S. G . § 4B 1. 1, thatSm i th m etthe r el evantcr i t er i a on age and p ri o r f e lo n yc o n v ic tio n s . F in a lly, th e D is tr ic t C o u rtth o u g h tf u lly c o n s id e re d 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f a c to rs, in c lu d in g S m ith ’s h isto rya n d th e n e e d f o r th e se n ten c e im p o se d . O n th is re c o rd , w e c o n c lu d e th a t a n yc h a lle n g e to th e le g a lity o f h is s e n te n c e is f

ri v o lo u s . C ouns el then exa m i ned w hetherthe G overnm entbr eac hed the pl ea a gr eement w hen i tdid not fi l e a m oti on for a do w nw ard dep arture from the sentenci ng gu i deli nes, pur s uantt o U . S. S. G . § 5K 1. 1, fors ubs t ant i al as s i s t ance bythe def endant . A s couns el c o rr e c tly sta te s , th e G o v e rn m e n t r e ta in s s o le d is c re tio n o n w h e th e r t o f ile a S e c tio n 5 K 1 .1 m o tio n . In d e e d , the G o v e rn m e n t co u ldb re a c h th e p lea a g re e m e n t o n lyif it d e c lin e d to m ake the mot i on i n bad fa i th bybas i ng i t s eval uat i on of as s i s t ance “on cons i der at i ons extr aneous t o thatas s i s t ance . ” See U ni ted States v. I

s aac , 1 4 1 F . 3 d 4 7 7 , 4 8 4 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). S m ith d o es n o t assert an ysu ch u n co n sti tuti o n al m o ti v e f o r th e G o v ern m en t’ s f a ilu re to f

ile th e m o tio n , n o r d id w e s e e a n yup o n o u r o w n re v ie w .5

C ouns el , l as t l y , exami nes w hetherSm i th w as unj us t l ytr eat ed bec aus e the G overnm entdi d notchar ge a c o- defe ndantw i th the s ame cr i m es . T he dec i s i ons on w h e th e rt o p r o s e c u t e a n d w h a tc h a r g e s t o f i l e r e s ti n th e p r o s e c u t o r ’ s d i s c r e t i o n . We a g re e w ith S m ith ’s c o u n s e l th a t th is is s u e is m e ri tle s s . I n hi s pr o s e br i ef, Sm i th r ai s es es s ent i al l ythe s ame br eac h of pl ea a gr eementi s s ue b rie f e d b yc o u n se l. O u t o f

a n a b u n d a n c e o f

c a u tio n , h o w e v e r, w e w ill e x a m in e h is Sect i on 5K 1. 1 m ot i on i s s ue s epar at el y . Sm i th cont ends thatthe G overnm entw as o b lig a ted to re p o rt o n h is le v e l o f c o o p e ra tio n so th a t th e D istric t C o u rt c o u ldm a k e its o wn a s s e s s me n to f

S mi th ’ s c o n tr i b u t i o n s , o rl a c kth e r e o f , i n d e t e rmi n i n g h i s s e n t e n c e . He m i s r eads and mi s appl i es the pl ea a gr eement ’ s br eac h pr ovi s i on, w hi ch gi ves the G overnm entdi s cr et i on i n “pet i t i oni ng the C ourtt o be r el i eved of i t s obl i gat i ons ” i n the e v e n t o f a b re a c h . P lea A g re e m e n t § 3 0 , Ja n u a ry6 , 2 0 0 9 , E C F N o . 3 9 . T h is la n g u a g e is irre le v a n t, b e c a u s e th e G o v e rn m e n t d id n o t s e e kto d e c la re th e a g re e m e n t b re a c h e d . M o re o v e r, as w e sa ida b o v e , the a g re e m e n t p lain lyg iv e s th e G o v e rn m e n t d isc re tio n to in d e p e n d e n tlye v a lu a te b o th th e su b sta n tialityo f S m ith ’s c o o p e ra tio n a n d w h e th e r it s h o u l d ma k e a r e c o mm e n d a t i o n t o d e p a rtf r o m th e s e n t e n c i n g g u i d e l i n e s . No n o n -f riv o lo u s g ro u n d s a p p e a r o n th is re c o rd to c h a llen g e th e G o v e rn m e n t’s re f u sa l to f ile a S e c tio n 5 K 1 .1 m o tio n . F inally , S m ith arg u es th at co u n sel w as in ef fe cti v e in f

ail ing to arg u e f

o r a do w nw ard dep arture i n h i s sent ence f or hi s coop erat i on w i th the G ov ernm ent. B ecause6

S m ith ’s c laim o f

in e f f e c tiv e n e ss c a n n o t b e d e ter m in e d o n th is re c o rd , w e re jec t h is a rg u m e n t. See U

ni ted States v. O l

f ano , 503 F. 3d 240, 246- 47 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( a cl ai m of in e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e sh o u ldn o t b e h e a rd o n d ire c t ap p e a l u n les s in e f f e c tiv e n e ss is ap p are n t on the re co rd). II. A ft er our r eview of co un sel ’s bri ef, S m i th’s pr o se br i ef, and ouri ndepende nt e x a m in a tio n o f

th e e n tire r e c o rd w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e re a re n o n o n -f riv o lo u s a p p e a lab le i s s ues i n thi s cas e. A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l aff i rm the D i s tr i ctC ourt ’ s j udgm entof c o n v i c t i o n a n d s e n t e n c e a n d , i n a s e p a r a t e o r d e r , g r a n tc o u n s e l ' s mo t i o n t o wi th d r a w.