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 1-16-2008 

# U SA v . H arnett 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 . 06-5098

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 arne tt " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1733. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1733H onor abl e Paul S. D i amond, D i s t r i ctJ udge of the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfor * t he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. -1- NOT 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- 5098

___________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. EULA LI A H AR NETT, a/k/ a B abyY oko, A p p e llan t.

___________ O n A p p e a l f

ro m a n O rd e r o f

th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( 06- cr - 00576- 1) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e M aryL i t t l e C ooper

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

N ovember29, 2007 B efor e: B A R R Y , FU E N T E S, C i r cui tJ udges , and D I A M O N D , D i s t r i ctJ udge. * ( O pi ni on Fi l ed: J anuary16, 2008) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT-2-

FU E N T E S, C i r cui tJ udge: O n N ov em ber 29, 2006 , E ulal i a H arnet tw as sent enced t o 1 6 m on t hs’ i m pr i s onm ent , foury ear s ’ s upervi s ed r el eas e, and a s peci al as s es s m entof $100 for cons pi r i ng t o di s t r i but e fi ve gr ams orm or e of “ cry s t al ” met hamphet ami ne, i n vi ol at i on of 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 6 . A f

ter f ili n g a n o tice o f

a p p e a l, H a rn e tt’s c o u n se l f iled a m o tio n to w i t hdr aw , acc om pani ed bya br i ef a r gui ng thatther e ar e no non- fr i vol ous i s s ues for a p p e a l . S e e An d e r s v . Ca l i f o r n i a , 3 8 6 U. S . 7 3 8 ( 1 9 6 7 ) . F o rth e r e a s o n s th a tf o l l o w, we w i l l gr antcouns el ’ s A nder s m ot i on and af fi r m the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s j udgm entof convi ct i on and s ent ence . I. B eca us e w e w r i t e onl yfort he part i es w ho ar e fa m i l i arw i t h t he fa ct s and the pr i or pr ocee di ngs , w e w i l l s etfor t h onl ythos e fa ct s nece s s aryt o ouranal y s i s . A s i ngl e- count In f o rm a tio n w a s f

iled a g a in st H a rn e tt ch a rg in g h e r w ith c o n sp ira c yto d istrib u te “ c ry sta l” m ethamphet ami ne fr om Sept ember2004 t hr ough O ct ober2004. O n J une 19, 2006, H arnet tent er ed i nt o a pl ea a gr eementw i t h t he governm entw her ebys he agr eed t o pl ead gui l t yand the governm entagr eed nott o br i ng addi t i onal char ges agai ns ther . I n addi t i on, t he governm entand H arnettent er ed i nt o a mut ual w ai verof the r i ghtt o appea l , w hi ch sta ted in re lev a n t p a rt, E u lalia H a rn e tt k n o w s th a t sh e h a s, a n d v o lu n tar ilyw a iv e s, th e rig h t to f ile anyappea l , anycol l at er al at t ack, oranyot herw r i torm ot i on, i ncl udi ng but notl i m i t ed t o an appe al under18 U . S. C . § 3742 ora mot i on under28-3-

U . S. C . § 2255, w hi ch cha l l enges the s ent ence i m pos ed bythe s ent enci ng cour ti f thats ent ence fal l s w i t hi n t he [U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng] G ui del i nes [(“G uidel i nes”)] range t hat r esul t s fr om the ag reed t otal G uidel i nes of fense l evel of 25. ( A pp. 24. ) A ts ent enci ng, t he D i s t r i ctC our tagr eed w i t h t he ca l cul at i ons i n t he pr es ent ence r eports ett i ng t he G ui del i nes offe ns e l evel at23, w hi ch corr es ponded t o an advi s or yG ui del i nes r ange of 46- 57 m ont hs ’ i m pr i s onm ent . C ons i der i ng the fa ct or s s et for t h i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) , t he D i s t r i ctC our tdepart ed fr om the l ow end of the G u id e lin e s ra n g e b y3 0 m o n th s a n d im p o se d a se n ten c e o f 1 6 m o n th s o f

im p riso n m e n t, f o llo w e d b yf

o u r ye a rs o f

s u p e rv is e d re le a s e , a n d im p o s e d a s p e c ia l a s s e s s m e n t o f $ 1 0 0 . N ot w i t hs t andi ng t he pl ea a gr eement , H arnet tfi l ed an a ppeal . H erat t orneyhas s ubs equent l ys ubm i t t ed a br i ef c ert i fy i ng thatH arnet tr ai s es no non- fr i vol ous i s s ues for ap p ea l. W e e x erc ise j u ri sd ict ion p u rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 an d 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 7 4 2 (a). II. I n A nder s v. C al i forni a, “the Supr eme C our tes t abl i s hed gui del i nes fora l aw y er se e k in g to w ith d ra w f

ro m a c a se w h e n th e in d ig e n t cr im in a l d e f e n d a n t h e re p re se n ts w i s hes t o pur s ue fr i vol ous ar gum ent s on appea l . ” U ni t ed St at es v. Y oul a, 241 F. 3d 296, 299 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . T hes e gui del i nes ar e r efl ect ed i n ourl ocal appel l at e rul es , w hi ch pr ovi de that , “[w ] her e, upon r evi ew of the di s tr i ctcour tr ecor d, tr i al couns el i s per s uaded th a t th e a p p e a l p re se n ts n o iss u e o f e v e n a rg u a b le m e rit, trial c o u n se l m a yf ile a m o tio n to w ith d raw an d su p p o rt ing b ri ef p u rsua n t t o A n d ers.” T h ir d C ir cu itL . A . R . 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 n d ers-4-

mo t i o n , a n d d i s p o s e o f

t h e a p p e a l wi t h o u ta p p o i n t i n g n e w c o u n s e l . ” I d . T h e Ru l e a l l o ws a def endantt o fi l e a pro se br i ef i n r es pons e. I d. A l t hough H arnet tw as not i fi ed of couns el ’ s A nder s br i ef, s he di d notfi l e anyr es pons e. I n t hi s cas e, H arnett ’ s appel l at e couns el has fi l ed an a dequat e A nder s br i ef, w hi ch d e m o n s t r a t e s a t h o r o u g h e x a m i n a t i o n o f th e r e c o r d o n a p p e a l . T h e b r i e f a d e q u a t e l y l a ys outt he fa ctual and pr ocedur al hi s t oryof the ca s e, and i dent i fi es s ever al gener al t opi cs w hi ch coul d ar guabl ygi ve r i s e t o an appe al abl e i s s ue. Fi r s t , the br i ef a ddr es s es w hether H arnet tknow i ngl yand vol unt ar i l yent er ed a gui l t ypl ea. Second, the br i ef a ddr es s es w hetherH arnettknow i ngl yand vol unt ar i l yw ai ved herr i ghtt o appea l . T hi r d, the br i ef di s cus s es w hetherH arnett ’ s s ent ence w as r eas onabl e. T he br i ef s at i s fac t or i l yexpl ai ns w h yth e re a re n o a p p e a la b le is s u e s re la te d to th e s e to p ic s . O uri ndepende ntr evi ew of the r ecor d r evea l s that , as couns el has r epr es ent ed, th e re a re n o n o n -f

riv o lo u s is su e s p re se n ted o n a p p e a l. H a rn e tt k n o w in g lya n d v o lu n tar ily ent er ed a gui l t ypl ea a nd w ai ved herr i ghtt o appea l . M or eover , the D i s t r i ctC our tdi d not err in se n tenc ing . T h e G u idelines ran g e w as p rop erlyca lculated , the D istri ct C o u rt p ro p e rlyru led o n a ll fo rm a l m o tio n s f o r d e p a rtu re , an d th e D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rly exer ci s ed i t s di s cr et i on bycons i der i ng the § 3553( a) fac t or s , w hi ch i s r efl ect ed i n t he 30- m o n th d ep arture f

rom the lo w en d o f th e G u idelines ran g e. S ee U n it ed S tat es v . G u n ter, 4 6 2 F .3 d 2 3 7 , 2 4 7 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ) (listin g c o n sid e ra tio n s to g u id e a d istric t co u rt in im p o sin g a re a so n a b le s e n ten c e ). F in a lly , the D istric t C o u rt im p o se d a se n ten c e w e ll-5-

bel ow t he G ui del i nes r ange a ccompany i ng an off ens e l evel of 25, w hi ch tr i gger s the ap p ea l w aive r. S ee U n it ed S tat es v . G w inn ett , 4 8 3 F . 3 d 2 0 0 , 2 0 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) (“[W ]e wi l l n o te x e r c i s e . . . j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w th e me r i t s o f [ a d e f e n d a n t ’ s ] a p p e a l i f

we c o n c lu d e th a t sh e k n o w in g lya n d v o lu n tar ilyw a iv e d h e r rig h t to a p p e a l u n les s th e re su lt wo u l d wo r k a mi s c a r r i a g e o f j u s t i c e . ” ) . We f

i n d th a tth e a p p e a l i s wi t h o u tme r i ta n d we w ill th e re f

o re d isp o se o f

it w ith o u t ap p o in tin g n e w c o u n se l.

III . A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l gr antcouns el ’ s A nder s m ot i on and af fi r m the j udgm entand se n ten c e o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.