2009 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 5-28-2009 

# U SA v . Julio T ul a-M ani 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 . 08-3766

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_2009

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 2009 D e c i sion s b y an authori 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 . Jul io T ul a -M ani " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1288. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1288T h e H o n o rab le Jo h n R . P ad o v a, S en ior U n it ed S tat es D istri ct Ju d g e f o r th e E astern * D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. 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. 08- 3766 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. JU L IO T U L A -M A N I, 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 . N o. 08- cr - 00251- 1) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e W i l l i am N eal on Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay19, 2009 B E F O R E : R E N D E L L a n d G A R T H , C i r cui tJudges , and

P A D O V A , Seni orD is tr i ct Judge . * ( Fi l ed: M ay28, 2009)

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT2

P A D O V A , Seni orD is tr i ct Judge . A p p e l l a n tJ u l i o T u l a - M a n i p l e d g u i l ty t o o n e c o u n to f u n l a w f u l r e e n try b y a re m o v e d a lien , in v io latio n o f 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 6 (a ), an d th e D istric t C o u rt se n ten c e d h im to 21 m onths of i m pr i s onm ent , one y earof s upervi s ed r el eas e, and a $100 s peci al as s es s m ent . C ouns el forA ppel l anthas m oved t o w i thdr aw as appel l at e couns el and has fi l ed a br i ef i n s uppor tof the mot i on pur s uantt o A nder s v. C al i forni a, 386 U . S. 738 ( 1 9 6 7 ) . C o u n s e l c o n t e n d s th a tth i s c a s e p r e s e n t s n o n o n f r i v o l o u s i s s u e s f

o ra p p e a l . We a g re e . A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt a n d , in a se p a ra te o r d e rf i l e d c o n c u r r e n t l yh e r e wi th , we wi l l g r a n tCo u n s e l ’ s mo t i o n t o wi th d r a w. I. W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rth i s a p p e a l p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 a n d 1 8 U. S . C. § 3742( a) . W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew t o det erm i ne w hetherther e ar e anynonfr i vol ous i s s ues on appea l . Pens on v. O hi o, 488 U . S. 75, 80 ( 1988) . T he det erm i nat i on of fr i vol ous nes s i s i nform ed bythe s t andar d of r evi ew foreac h pot ent i al cl ai m r ai s ed. See, e.g., U n it ed S tat es v . S ch u h , 2 8 9 F . 3 d 9 6 8 , 9 7 4 -76 (7th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). II. B ec au se w e w ri te so lel yfo r th e p arti es, w e w il l add ress o n lytho se f ac ts ne ce ssary t o ourdeci s i on. O n D ece m ber14, 2007, A ppel l antw as deport ed fr om the U ni t ed St at es t o M exi co, w her e he w as and r emai ns a ci t i zen. I n 2008, A ppel l anti l l egal l yr eent er ed the U ni t ed St at es t o r euni t e w i th hi s 5- y ear - ol d daught er , w ho w as l i vi ng i n W i l kes - B arr e,3

P e n n s yl v a n i a . O n M a y 2 0 , 2 0 0 8 , A p p e l l a n tw a s a rr e s t e d i n L u z e rn e C o u n ty, Penns y l vani a, fordr i vi ng underthe i nfl uence . L ocal offi ci al s not i fi ed the B ur eau of I m m i gr at i on and C us t om s E nfor cement( “I C E ”) on M ay21, 2008, thatA ppel l ant appea r ed t o be i n t he countr yi l l egal l y , and A ppel l antadmi t t ed t o I C E agent s i n an i nt ervi ew conduct ed on M ay30, 2008, thathe w as a ci t i zen of M exi co w ho w as p re v io u s ly re m o v e d f

ro m th e U n ite d S ta te s . O n J une 30, 2008, I C E agent s arr es t ed A ppel l antforunl aw ful r eentryi n vi ol at i on of 8 U . S. C . § 1326( a) . O n A ugus t27, 2008, A ppel l antpl ed gui l tyt o thatoffe ns e and w as s ent ence d. T he pr e- s ent ence i nves t i gat i on r eport( “PSR ”) , t o w hi ch A ppel l antdi d not o b ject, d eterm ined that A p p ell an t’ s total of fe n se lev el w as 1 0 an d h is cri m inal h ist o ry cat egoryw as I , y i el di ng a G ui del i nes s ent enci ng r ange of 21 t o 27 m onths of i m pri sonm ent. T he P S R st at ed thatthe G uidel i nes range w as capp ed at 24 m on ths, how ever , beca us e of the tw o- y ears t atut orym axi m um gener al l yappl i cabl e t o vi ol at i ons of 8 U . S . C . § 1 3 2 6 (a). A fter h ea ri n g tr ial co u n sel’s arg u m en ts i n fa v o r of a d o w n w ard var i ance and cons i der i ng A ppel l ant ’ s pr i orcr i m i nal hi s t ory( w hi ch i ncl uded s ever al pr i or drunk dr i vi ng offe ns es ) , m i t i gat i ng per s onal ci r cumst ance s , and bac kgr ound, the D i s tr i ct C our ts ent ence d hi m t o 21 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm ent . T hi s s ent ence fel l atthe bott om end of th e a d v iso ryG u id e lin e s c u sto d yra n g e . A p p e llan t ti m e lyf iled th is a p p e a l. III . O u r ro le w ith re sp e c t to A n d e rs b rie f s is to d e ter m in e w h e th e r th e a p p e a l is w h o llyT he R ule pr ov i des: 1 W h e re , u p o n re v iew o f th e d istric t co u rt re c o rd , co u n se l is

p e r s u a d e d 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 er i t , couns el m ayfi l e a mot i on t o w i th d r aw and s uppor t i ng b ri ef p u rsua n t t o A n d e rs v . C ali fo rnia, 38 6 U . S . 7 3 8 (19 6 7 ), w hich m ustbe served u po n the app el l ant and t he U nit ed S t at es. T he U ni t ed St at es m us tfi l e a br i ef i n r es pons e. A ppel l antm ay al s o fi l e a br i ef in resp o n s e pr o s e. A ft eral l br i efs have be en fi l ed, the cl erk w i l l r efe rthe ca s e t o a m er i t s panel . I f the pane l ag ree s tha t th e a p p ea l i s w ith o u t m erit , it w ill g ran t cou n sel’s A nder s m ot i on, and di s pos e of the appe al w i thoutapp o inti ng new couns el . I f the panel fi nds ar guabl e m er i t t o the appe al , or th at the A nd ers bri ef i s i nad equ at e t o ass i st the court in its r e v i e w, i twi l l a p p o i n ts u b s t i tu t e c o u n s e l , o r d e rs u p p l e me n t al b ri e f in g a n d re s to re th e c a s e to th e c a le n d a r. . . . 3 d C ir . L . A . R . 1 0 9 . 2 (a). 4 f ri v o lo u s . If

s o , w e m a y“ g ra n t c o u n s e l’ s m o tio n to w ith d ra w a n d d is m is s th e a p p e a l . . .

. ” U ni t ed St at es v. Y oul a, 241 F. 3d 296, 299 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( ci t i ng A nder s , 386 U . S. at 744) . H ow ever , i f w e fi nd “‘ anyof the l egal poi nt s ar guabl e on thei rm er i t s ( and ther efor e notfr i vol ous ) [w e] m us t , pr i ort o deci s i on, aff or d the i ndi gentthe as s i s t ance of couns el t o ar gue the appe al . ’ ” I d. at300 ( quot i ng A nder s , 386 U . S. at744) . W e have codi fi ed thi s s t andar d i n L ocal A ppel l at e R ul e 109. 2( a) . I d. 1 O urA nder s i nqui r yi s tw ofol d. Fi r s t , w e mustdet erm i ne “w hethercouns el ad eq u atelyfu lfi ll ed the ru le’s req u ir em en ts. ” Id . (cit ati o n o m itted). A n ad eq u ate A n d ers br i ef: ( 1) “s at i s f[i es ] the courtthatcouns el has thor oughl yexami ned the r ecor d i n s ear ch of appe al abl e i s s ues , ” i d. ; ( 2) i dent i fi es any“i s s ue[s ] ar guabl ys uppor t i ng the appe al even5

tho u g h the a p p ea l w as w h o ll yfrivo lou s, ” S m ith v . R o b b ins, 52 8 U . S . 2 5 9 , 2 8 5 (20 0 0 ); and ( 3) “expl ai n[s ] w hythe i s s ues ar e fr i vol ous . ” U ni t ed St at es v. M arvi n, 211 F. 3d 778, 780 ( 3d C i r . 2000) . Second, w e mustdet erm i ne “w hetheran i ndepende ntr evi ew of the r ecor d pr es ent s anynonfr i vol ous i s s ues . ” Y oul a, 241 F. 3d at300. “A n appea l on a m att erof l aw i s fr i vol ous w her e ‘ none of the l egal poi nt s [ar e] ar guabl e on thei rm er i t s . ’ ” I d. at301 ( quot i ng N ei t zke v. W i l l i ams, 490 U . S. 319, 325 ( 1989) ) ; s ee a l s o M cC oyv. C o u rt o f A p p e a ls o f

W is., 48 6 U .S . 4 2 9 , 4 3 8 n .1 0 (1 9 8 8 ) (n o tin g th a t an a p p e a l is f ri v o lo u s if

it “ la c k s a n yb a s is in la w o r f a c t” ). A. I n hi s br i ef, C ouns el i dent i fi es thr ee pot ent i al i s s ues forappea l : ( 1) the j ur i s di ct i on of the cou rtt o en t er the co nv i ct i on and i m po se sent ence; ( 2) the v al i dityor volunt ari ness of A ppel l ant ’ s gui l typl ea; and ( 3) the l egal i tyof A ppel l ant ’ s s ent ence . A ppel l antdi d not exer ci s e hi s r i ghtt o fi l e a br i ef pr o s e. See 3d C i r . L . A . R . 109. 2( a) . I n l i ghtof A ppel l ant ’ s gui l typl ea, C ouns el pr oper l yl i m i t ed hi s anal y s i s t o thes e thr ee i s s ues . See U ni t ed St at es v. B r oce, 488 U . S. 563, 569 ( 1989) ( l i m i t i ng appel l at e r evi ew i n cas es i n v o l v i n g g u i l typ l e a s t o th e v a l i d i tya n d v o l u n t a r i n e s s o f s u c h p l e a s ) ; 1 8 U. S . C. § 3742( a) . C ouns el exami nes eac h pot ent i al i s s ue w i th car e, ci t es s ubs t ant i al l yt o the re c o rd a n d c o n tro lli n g c a se law , an d id e n tifie s a n d re b u ts p o ten tial c o u n ter -a rg u m e n ts a g a in st a f

in d in g o f f riv o lo u sn e ss . W e th e re f o re f in d th a t th e A n d e rs b rie f is a d e q u a te b ec au se C o u n sel h as “ ‘pro v ided su ff ici en t i n d ici a tha t he th o rou g h lysea rch ed the re co rd6

and the law i n servi ce of his cl i ent s o thatw e m i gh tcon fi den t l ycon si der onlytho se o b jecti o n s raised . ’” Y o u la, 2 4 1 F . 3 d at 30 1 (qu o ti n g M arv in, 21 1 F . 3 d at 78 1 ). B. H a v in g d e ter m in e d th a t C o u n se l’s A n d e rs b rie f is a d e q u a te, w e a llo w th e b rie f to gui de ouri ndepende ntr evi ew of the r ecor d. See Y oul a, 241 F. 3d at301. T he fi r s ti s s ue id e n tifie d b yC o u n se l p e rta in s to th e D istric t C o u rt’s ju risd ictio n . A p p e llan t p led g u iltyto v io latin g 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 6 (a ), a c rim in a l im m ig ra tio n o f f e n se . T h e D istric t C o u rt p lain ly h a d j u r i s d i c t i o n t o p u n i s h s u c h a n o f f e n s e . S e e 8 U. S . C. § 1 3 2 9 ; s e e a l s o 1 8 U. S . C. § 3231. T hus , A ppel l antcan r ai s e no nonfr i vol ous i s s ues w i th r es pectt o j ur i s di ct i on. T he s econd i s s ue i dent i fi ed byC ouns el pert ai ns t o the val i di tyand vol unt ar i nes s of Ap p e l l a n t ’ s g u i l typ l e a . Th e r e c o r d s h o ws th a tth e Di s tr i c tCo u r t , a s r e q u i r e d b yF e d . R. C r i m . P. 11( b) and B oyki n v. A l abama, 395 U . S. 238 ( 1969) , thor oughl ycol l oqui ed A p p ell an t bef

o re a cc ep ti n g h is plea. T h e D istri ct C o u rtinf o rm ed A p p ell an t of

the n ature of the cha r ge aga i ns thi m , the r i ght s he for fei t ed bypl eadi ng gui l ty , the maxi m um penal t i es perm i t t ed forhi s offe ns e, the advi s orynatur e of the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes , t he f a c t th a t h e c o u ld n o t w ith d ra w h is p lea m e re lyb e c a u se h e m a yb e d iss a tisf ied w ith h is s ent ence , and the fa ctual bas i s forhi s gui l typl ea. See U ni t ed St at es v. Schw ei t zer , 454 F. 3d 197, 202 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . L ooki ng atthe t ot al i tyof the ci r cumst ance s s urr oundi ngC o u n sel p o ints ou t th at th e D istri ct C o u rtfa il ed to inf o rm A p p ell an t of

the s tatu tory 2 e lem ents of the off

ense. A s A pp el l ant di d n ot obj ectt o thi s om i ssi on below , w e w ou ld rev iew an y d ef

ec ts f o r p lai n erro r. S ee U n it ed S tat es v . G o o d so n , 5 4 4 F . 3 d 5 2 9 , 5 3 9 (3d C ir . 2008) ( ci t i ng U ni t ed St at es v. V onn, 535 U . S. 55 ( 2002) ) . T he fa i l ur e t o i nform a def endant of the s t atut oryel ement s of the cr i m e w i th w hi ch he i s char ged ca nnotcons t i tut e pl ai n err or b e c a u se a d istric t co u rt is n o t r equi r ed under R ul e 11 t o “s pel l out the el ement s of the cha r ge i n o r d e rt o i n f

o r m th e d e f

e n d a n ta d e q u a t e l y . ” I n r e S e a l e d Ca s e , 2 8 3 F . 3 d 3 4 9 , 3 5 3 ( D. C. C i r. 20 02 ). C on sequen t l y , anyargum ents assert i ng this i ssue w ou l d b e fri vo l ou s. 7 A p p e l l a n t ’ s p l e a , w e a r e s a t i s f i e d th a tA p p e l l a n tv o l u n t a r i l y a n d k n o w i n g l y p l e d g u i l t y. 2 See U ni t ed St at es v. C efa r att i , 221 F. 3d 502, 508 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ; s ee a l s o H ei s erv. R y an, 951 F. 2d 559, 564 ( 3d C i r . 1991) . A ppel l antcan ther efor e r ai s e no nonfr i vol ous i s s ues w i th r es pectt o hi s pl ea. T he thi r d and fi nal i s s ue i dent i fi ed byC ouns el pert ai ns t o the l egal i tyof A ppel l ant ’ s s ent ence . T o be l egal , a s ent ence cannotexce ed the maxi m um s ent ence perm i t t ed bys t atut e and mustbe r eas onabl e. See U ni t ed St at es v. C ooper , 437 F. 3d 324, 3 2 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ); U n it ed S tat es v . F leno ry , 8 7 6 F . 2 d 1 0 , 1 1 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 9 ). F o r a se n ten c e to b e re a so n a b le, th e d istric t co u rt m u st: (1 ) f o llo w th e p ro c e d u re s a n n o u n c e d in U ni t ed St at es v. G al l , 128 S. C t . 586 ( 2007) , gi vi ng m eani ngful cons i der at i on t o the pert i nents ent enci ng fac t or s embodi ed i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) ; and ( 2) pr ovi de an adequa t e j us t i fi cat i on forthe w i thi n- G ui del i nes s ent ence i m pos ed. See U ni t ed St at es v. L evi ns on, 543 F. 3d 190, 194- 96 ( 3d C i r . 2008) . A ppel l ant ’ s 21- m onth s ent ence di d not exce ed the s t atut orym axi m um , the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s pr oces s conform ed t o the pr ocedur esT her e w as one m i nor err or i n the G ui del i nes cal cul at i on i n thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tcappe d 3 the to p en d o f th e G u idelines ran g e a t 24 m o n ths, be li ev ing that a tw o -y ea r st atuto ry m a x im u m a p p lied w h e n , in f a c t, th e a p p lica b le s tatu to rym a x im u m w a s 1 0 y e a rs d u e to A ppel l ant ’ s pr i orfel onyconvi ct i on. See 8 U . S . C . § 1 3 2 6 ( b) ( 1) ( enhanc i ng the maxi m um s ent ence t o 10 y ear s “i n the cas e of any al i en des cr i bed i n [s ubs ect i on ( a) ] . . . w hos e r emoval w as s ubs equentt o a convi ct i on forcomm i s s ion o f . . . a fe l ony( otherthan an a ggr avat ed fel ony ) ”) ; PSR ¶ 12 ( obs ervi ng thatA ppel l ant“w as pr evi ous l ydeport ed . . . aft erconvi ct i ons for fel oni es ”) . H ow ever , gi ven that the D i s tr i ct C our t s ent ence d A ppel l ant atthe bott om end of the G ui del i nes r ange, w hi ch di d notchange , i t i s r eadi l yappar entthatthe appl i cat i on of the tw o- y earcap ha d n o ef fec ton A ppel l ant ’ s s ent ence . C f. U ni t ed St at es v. K ni ght , 266 F. 3d 203, 208 ( 3d C i r. 2 0 0 1 ) (not i ng thata G ui del i nes cal cul at i on err ordoes notr equi r e a sen tenc ing rem an d w h ere “the rec o rd sh o w s tha t th e se n tenc e w as u n af fe cted b ythe e rror”). C ons equent l y , A ppel l ant ’ s s ub stan t i al r i ght s w er e notaff ect ed bythi s m i norerr or . See U n ited S tate s v . W o o d , 4 8 6 F .3 d 7 8 1 , 7 9 0 n .6 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 7 ) (q u o tin g U n ited S tate s v . N a p p i, 2 4 3 F . 3 d 7 5 8 , 7 6 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 )). 8 a n n o u n c e d in G a ll, a n d th e D istric t C o u rt p ro v id e d a n a d e q u a te ju stif ica tio n f o r its 3 choi ce of s ent ence — notw i ths t andi ng A ppel l ant ’ s r eques tfora dow nw ar d var i ance t o a 15- m onth s ent ence — s uch thatw e ar e conf i denti tgave meani ngful cons i der at i on t o the § 3553( a) fac t or s . C ons equent l y , A ppel l antcan r ai s e no nonfr i vol ous i s s ues w i th r es pect t o the l egal i tyof hi s s ent ence . I V. W e conc l ude thatC ouns el has ful fi l l ed hi s obl i gat i on underA nder s and the Local A ppel l at e R ul es t o pr ovi de an a dequat e no- m er i tbr i ef t o gui de ouri ndepende ntr evi ew of the r ecor d. W e have found no nonfr i vol ous i s s ues forappea l , and w e ar e s at i s fi ed thatt he r equi r ement s of A nder s have be en met . A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l aff i r m the j udgm entof the 

### Distri ct Co urt a n d , in a s e p a ra te o rd e r, g ra n t C o u n s e l’ s m o tio n to w ith d ra w .