2004 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
4-21-2004 

# U SA v . Out e n P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 02-3785

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd 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 no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 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 no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" U SA v . Out e n " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 799. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/799NOT PRE CEDENT IAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT
No. 02-3785
UNITED S TATES OF AMERI CA

v. IS AIAH OU TEN, Appellant App eal from th e Un ited States District Co urt for the Easte rn D istrict of P enns ylvania (D.C. Crimi nal No. 02-cr -00065-1) District Judge: H onorab le Harve y Bartle, III
Submitte d Under Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

April 12, 2004 Be for e: R EN DE LL , CO W EN and LA Y* , Circu it Judges
.

(Fil ed: April21, 2004)
OPINI ON OF THE COURT
RE ND EL L, Circuit

Judge
.

*Honorable Donald P. Lay , Senior Circuit Judge for t

he Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.2

On Ju ne 20, 20 02, Isaiah O uten w as conv icted by a jury of possession o f a firearm by a convi cted fel on pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) . He was sentence d to 90 months in pri son, t

hree y ears supe rvise d relea se, and a c riminalmonetary penalty of $100. Outen
now appeals. Fo r the reasons stated below , we w ill affirm the D istrict Court’s order. In additi on, we willgrant t he motion of Outen’ s counsel , Geoffrey V. Seay, Esq., f

or leave to w ithdraw as co unse l. Outen’s counse l fil ed a brie f pursuant to An ders v . Califo rnia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that

Outen’s appealrais es no non-fr ivolous issues . When evaluat ing an Anders brief, we inquire 1) whether counseladequately r epresent ed his cl ient; and 2) wh ether a n ind epen dent re view of the record revea ls any no n-friv olou s issues that co uld sup por t an a ppe al. See Un ited Sta tes v. Y oula , 241 F.3d 296, 300 (3d Cir. 200 1). Here, counselhas identifie d two possibl e issue s that might argua

bly support an ap pe al , and h e h as ex ami ne d the re co rdan d e xpl ai ne d wh yth e i ss ue s are fr iv ol ous . A n indepen dent review of the reco rd also reveals tha t Outen’s a ppeal is frivolou s. In reviewing the record, w e exam ine those po rtions of the reco rd identified by coun sel’s And ers brie f an d O uten ’s pr o se brie f. Yo ula , 241 F.3d at 301. In hi s brie f, counsel presents tw o possible issue s: 1) whe ther the District Co urt correctly denied O uten’s motion t o suppress physi cal evi dence and st atements he made, and 2) whethe r the Dis tri ct Co urt pro perly sen tence d O uten. In his pro se brie f, Ou ten ass erts the is sues ra ised in defense counsel ’s bri ef as wellas thr ee addit ional i ssues: 1) the gover nment “soli cite d3

perjur ed testim ony to p revail,” 2 ) the go vern men t violated his du e pro cess rig hts w hen it amended his i ndictment to include a charge of pos sessi on of ammunition, and 3) the District Court gave improper jury instructi ons. With regar d to the f

irst issue i dentif

ied in t he And ers brief, the District Co urt properly deni ed the moti on to suppre ss evide nce of a weapon that Outen discarded and bullet s found on his pe rson, as well as stat ements he made during his ar rest . The Supreme Court has expl ained that a pol ice offi cer may“stop” a pe rson on the stre et if the offic er ha s a re as on ab le a nd pr ud en t b eli ef th at t he pe rso n i s in vo lv ed in cr im in al a cti vi ty, and, i ncident

to that stop, “fris k” the per son if t he officer

has “articula

ble suspi cion” that the pers on is i nvolved in “ a crime of vi olence. ” Terry v. O hio , 392 U.S . 1, 13 , 33 ( 196 8). Here, the officer s, r esponding t o a radio c all a bout a man with a gun, observed Outen outsi de a buil ding. Upon seeing Mr. Outen, the officer s deter mined that

he matched the radio des cription, wat ched him, and t hen parked and exi ted the ir car , at which time Outen beg an to run . He thre w d ow n th e ha ndg un b efo re th e office rs sto ppe d an d fr iske d hi m. The o ffi cer s thenpi cke d up th e gun they hadse en Ou te n dr op, andarre st ed h im. With r es pec t t o the p hy si calevi den ce, Out en h ad n oty etbee n stopp ed at t he time he dr opp ed the gun . Thu s, the po lice did not o btain th e gun illegally and it was prop erly adm itted into evid enc e. See California v . Ho dari D ., 499 U. S. 621, 624 ( 1991). I n light of th e dis cov ery of

the g un, t he o ffic ers h ad p rob able cau se to law fully a rrest Ou ten. See Ho rton v . Califo rnia , 496 U .S. 128, 136 (1990). T hey discovered the bullets on O uten’s1 As detailed in defense counsel’s brief, Outen w as convicted of several prior offenses:

manufacturing, del ivery and possess ion with t

he inte nt to manufact

ure or del iver of a contro lled sub stance ; robb ery; aggra vated assau lt; posse ssion o f a fire arm w ithout a lice nse; and criminalconspir acy. The sentences for thes e offenses were c onsoli dated; how ever, becau se Ou ten wa s arrested separa tely for his prior offenses, the se ntences w ere properly considered separately for purpo ses of determ ining O uten’s Crim inal History Ca tego ry. See U.S .S.G . § 4A 1.2, ap p. note 3; see also United States v. Hallman , 23 F.3d 821, 825 n.3 ( 3d Cir. 1994) (“note 3 instruc ts that whenever offens es are s eparat ed by inter vening arrests, the sent ences for t hose offenses are unrel ated re gardles s of whether sen tenc ing wa s co nso lidat ed” ). 4 per son dur ing a se arch incid ent to that l aw ful a rrest . See New Y ork v. Bel ton , 453 U. S. 454 , 457 ( 198 1); Ch imel v . Califo rnia , 395 U .S. 752 , 762- 63 (1 969 ). Thu s, the bu llets
we re als o pr ope rly adm itted
. With respec t to t

he stat ement he made to t he polic e, Outen voluntari ly told t he offic ers tha t the gu n belo nged to his siste r. Bec ause the state men t was not m ade in response to any ques tioning by t he polic e, i t was admissible despi te the fact t hat Outen had not y et rec eived the Miranda wa rnin gs. See Miranda v. Ariz ona , 384 U.S. 436, 478 (196 6) (statin g that “ volu nteere d statem ents o f any kin d are n ot barr ed by the Fifth Am endm ent and the ir admissibility is not barred by [its] holding”). With regar d to the s econd iss ue ident ifie d by t he And ers brief, the sent ence imposed by the District Court w as well w ithin the applicable g uidelines rang e. Outen ’s base offense level was 24. As a result of his prior offenses, 1 Outen recei ved four crim inal h istor y poin ts. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1( a), ( c). He al so recei ved two addit ional crimina l his tory

points because, at the time he committed thi s offense, he was on5

pro batio n or par ole. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1( d). Fi nally , he rec eived one poi nt for
com mittin g th e ins tant c rime less t han two years a fter bein g re leas ed f rom state cus tod y. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1 .1(e). This gave Outen a total of seven cri minal history points, placi ng him in Cri minal History Category

of IV pursuant

to § 5A of the Sent encing Guideline s. Thus, the 90-month s entence i mposed by t he District Court

was within t

he 77- to 96-m onth rang e of the G uidelines. Ad ditionally, Outen’s sentence to three years supervised release is perm itted under 18 U.S.C . §3561(c )(1). A s re qu ire d b y And ers , Ou ten rec eived notice of d efen se co unse l’s intent to withdraw, al lowing him the opportuni ty to fil e a pro se brief. Although Outen fi led such a brief and r aised e ssentia lly three add itional issu es, w e find them lackin g in m erit. First, O uten a rgue s that the gov ernm ent “so licited pe rjured testimo ny to prev ail” during hi s suppres sion hearing. Thr ee out of t he four offi cers pr esent t he day t he inci dent
occu rred tes tified, an d the D istrict Co urt acc epted their testim ony as c redible . The re is simply no evidence t

hat the officer s’ te sti mony constitut ed perjur y. Second, Outen argues that the gov ernm ent vio lated h is due proc ess righ ts wh en it am ende d his in dictm ent to include a charge of possession of ammu nition. However, this claim has no m erit because the ori ginal indictment

did, in fact, charge Outen wit h both offenses . Thir d, Outen conte nds th at the D istrict Co urt gav e “im prop er jury instru ctions w here J udg e Ba rtle fai le d t o i n fo rm (sic ) the j ury .” As the gover nment point s out i n its brief, this argument is not clear enough to be a deci dable i ssue, and there fore we also find this content ion6

with out m erit. Bec ause coun sel con ducte d a co nscien tious re view of the record and c orrectly found that

there were no non-fri volous i ssues t o support an appeal, the And ers stand ard is satis fied
. See And ers , 386 U .S. at 744. Ac cordingly, we w ill grant defense c ounsel’s request to withdr aw from the appeal . We will al so AFFIRM Outen’s convi ction and sentence .