2005 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
5-31-2005 

# U SA v . T orres 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 . 04-1079

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght 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 git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 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 git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin . 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 . T or r e s " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1115. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/1115- 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. 04- 1079

UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. RO QU E TOR RES a/k/ a O s carT or r es RO Q U E TO RR ES, 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

fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D
. C
. N o. 02- cr - 00636- 1) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le Jo sep h A
. G ree n aw ay , Jr.
Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL
. A
. R
. 34. 1( a)

A pr i l 21, 2005 B efore: R O T H , F U E N T E S , and S T A P L E T O N , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: M ay31, 2005) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

FU E N T E S, C i r cui tJ udge.- 2-

C o u n se l f

o r R o q u e T o rre s h a s file d a m o tio n to w ith d ra w a s a p p e llate c o u n se l in th is
c a s e a nd ha s s ub mi t t e d a br i e f i n s up po r t t he r e of pu r s ua nt t o A nd e r s v. Cal i fo r ni a , 38 6 U. S. 738 ( 1967)
. C ouns el ar gues t hatt her e ar e no non- fr i vo lous i s s ues t hatcan be r ai s ed on appea l by T or r es . T or r es w as pr ovi ded w i t h a copyof the mot i on and the br i ef a nd w as gi ven
n o tice th a t h e c o u ld f

ile a p ro se b rie f
. H e e lec ted to d o so a n d f iled a n in f

o rm a l b rie f

w ith t he C our ton Sept ember 23, 2004. T o rre s w a s ch a rg e d in a o n e -c o u n t in f o rm a tio n w ith d istrib u tio n a n d p o ss e ss io n w ith inten t d o di s t r i but e more t han 50 gr ams of coc ai ne bas e ( “cr ack” ) , 21 U
. S. C
. § 841( a), ( b) ( 1) ( A )
. T he char ge ar os e fr om t he s al e by T or r es of tw o bags of cr ack f ora ca s h amount
o f $ 2 ,4 0 0 to a n u n d e rc o v e r F B I a g e n t o n S e p tem b e r 6 , 2 0 0 1 . T o rre s w a s s u b se q u e n tly
arr es t ed on M ar ch 22, 2002 w hen he a gr eed t o s el l an addi t i onal appr oxi m at el y50 gr ams of
cr ack t o t he under coverFB I agent . O n A ugus t 19, 2002, T or r es pl ed gui l t yt o t he one- count in f o rm a tio n p u rsu a n t to a w ritten p lea a g re e m e n t. Subse quent l y , T or r es fi l ed a mot i on fordow nw ar d departur e pur s uantt o § 5K 2. 0 of th e U .S . S e n ten c in g G u id e lin e s (“ G u id e lin e s” ) a n d 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 . S p e c if ica lly , w h ile
n o t i n g h i s s t r o n g f

a m i l i a l t i e s a s w e l l a s h i s c o n t r i t i o n f o rh a v i n g c a u s e d p a i n t o h i s f a m i l y, T o rre s s o u g h t a d o w n w a rd d e p a rtu re o n a c c o u n t o f h is m e d ica l co n d iti o n , p a rticu lar lyh is d iab e tes , h ig h b lo o d p re ss u re a n d h e a rt d ise a se . T o rre s a lso a sk e d th e D istric t C o u rt to depart fr om t he G ui del i nes beca us e he had cooper at ed w i t h t he G overnm entand bec aus e of hi s al l egedl ydepl or abl e pr e- t r i al pr i s on confi n em en t. T he G overnm entt her eaf t erfi l ed an- 3-

oppos i t i on t o T or r es ’ m ot i on on t he grounds t hat T or r es had fai l ed t o s how t hatt he B ur eau
o f P ri so n s w o u ld b e u n ab le t o p ro p erlyca re f o r him g iven h is m ed ical co n d it ion s. In addi t i on, t he G overnm ents t at ed thatT or r es had al r eadyr ece i ved a l ow erG ui del i nes r ange
on acc ountof hi s cooper at i on, and that , w i t h r egar ds t o t he i s s ue of t he condi t i on of hi s pr et r i al confi nement , T or r es had not s how n t hat t he j ai l condi t i ons i n t he di s t r i ctw er e atypi cal
a s c o m p a re d w ith ja ils in o th e r j u ri s d ic tio n s . O n D ece m ber 22, 2003, T or r es appea r ed bef or e the D i s t r i ctC our tfors ent enci ng. T he D is tr ic t C o u rt, af

ter n o tin g its a u th o rityto d e p a rt d o w n w a rd in its d isc re tio n p u rsu a n t to § 5K 2. 0 of t he G ui del ines , d ec l i ned t o do s o. Speci fi cal l y , i tfound thatT or r es ’ m edi cal condi t i ons w er e nots o extr aor di naryt hatt heycoul d notbe tr eat ed ade quat el ybyt he B ur eau
o f P ri sons, or that t he j ai l condi t i ons i n t he pr i s ons i n t he di s t r i ct w er e s uch t o d ep art downwar d
. I n a d d i t i o n , t h e Di s t r i c t Cou r t n o t e d t h a t a d o wnwar d d e p a r tu r e p r emi s ed on T or r es ’ cooper at i on w i t h t he G overnm entw oul d be i nappr o p r i a t e p u r s uantt o § 5K 2. 0, abs ent sp e c ial c irc u m sta n c e s, b e c a u se to d o so w o u ld o v e rrid e th e G o v e rn m e n t’s d isc re tio n n o t to fi l e a m ot i on pur s uant t o § 5K 1. 1 of the G ui del i nes . A ft ernot i ng t hatt he s ent enci ng r ange undert he G ui del i nes w as 87 t o 108 m ont hs , t he D i s t r i ctC our ti m pos ed a sen t ence of 91
m ont h s im p r i s onm ent . I n addi t i on, t he D i s t r i ctC our ti m pos ed thr ee y ear s of s uper vi s ed
re lea se a n d a m a n d a to ry$ 1 0 0 sp e c ial a ss e ss m e n t. W e adhe r e t o a t w o- par t i nqui r y w hen anal y zi ng A nder s br i efs
. See U ni t ed St at es v. Y oul a, 241 F. 3d 296, 300 ( 3d C i r . 2001)
. T hi s i nqui r ycons i sts o f t he fol l ow i ng: “( 1)R u le 1 0 9 .2 o f th e T h ird C irc u it’s L o c a l R u les o u tli n e s the re q u ire m e n ts a p p e llate 1 cou nsel m ustfoll ow i n o rdert o w i t hd raw from t he represent at i on pu rs uan tt o A nd ers .

- 4- w hether c ouns el adequa t el yful fi l l ed the rul e’ s r equi r ement s ; and ( 2) w hetheran 1 i nd epen den trevi ew of the recor d pres ents any no n-fr i vo l ou s i ssues. ” Id. R egardi ng t he fir st i s s ue, w e fi nd t hat couns el ’ s br i ef i s adequa t e. W hen an at t or ney s ubm i t s an A nder s br i ef, h e r d u ti es a re (1 ) t o d em o n str ate to the C o u rtthat sh e h as th o rou g h lyex am ined the re co rd fo r ap p ea lable i ssu es; an d (2) t o d em o n str ate th at the i ssu es are frivo lou s. Id

. I n carr y i ng out h er d u ti es, “[ c]o u n sel n ee d n o t r ais e a n d reje ct ev eryp o ssible claim
. ” Id

. C ouns el needs onl yt o s at i s fyt he “c ons ci ent i ous exami nat i on” s t andar d s etfor t h i n A nder s . I d. A ft er
r evi ew i ng t he br i ef s ubm i t t ed bycouns el , w e ar e s at i s fi ed thatcouns el has m ett hi s s t andar d. She exami ned the r ecor d foranypot ent i al appea l abl e i s s ues ar i s i ng fr om t he pl ea pr ocee di ng and the s ent enci ng pr ocee di ng and s uppor t ed her cl ai m s of fr i vol ous nes s w i t h ci t at i ons t o t he rel evan tcase l aw . In addit i on , i n respon se t o an order of t his C ou rtdir ect i ng cou nsel t o rai se anyi s s ues underthe Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n U ni t ed St at es v. B ooker, 1 2 5 S. C t . 738 ( 2005) , couns el forT or r es s ubm i t t ed a l et t er r eques t i ng t hat t he s ent ence be vaca t ed and the
cas e r emanded t o t he D i s t r i ctC our tforr e- s ent enci ng. W i t h r egar ds t o t he s econd- pr ong of t he anal y s i s , w e mustconductouri ndepende nt
r evi ew of t he r ecor d t o det er m i ne w hetheranynon- fr i vol ous i s s ues s h o u ld b e r ai s ed on appea l
. H ow ever , w hen an A nder s br i ef a ppear s adequa t e on it s fa ce , as i tdoes her e, our i ndepende ntexami nat i on o f t he r ecor d i s t o be gui ded byt he A nder s br i ef i t s el f and the- 5-

A p p e lla n t’ s p ro s e b ri e f. S e e Y o u la , 2 4 1 F .3 d a t 3 0 1
. I n hi s pr o s e br i ef, T or r es ar gues t hat hi s Fi fth A m endment r i ght s w er e vi ol at ed w hen his case proceed ed on t he on e-coun t i nfo rm at i on i n t he absenc e of an i nd i ct m ent. T orr es al so argues t hat hi s Sixth A m end m ent r i gh tt o a speedy t ri al w as viol at ed w hen t here w as a l apse of al m os tfi ve mont hs betw een t he t i m e of hi s arr ai gnm ent and t he t i m e of hi s pl ea. W e fi nd thes e issu es to b e w ith o u t m erit
. W ith resp ec t to th e F ift h A m en d m en t violati o n , the re co rd i s cl eart hatT or r es know i ngl y and vol unt ar i l yw ai ved hi s r i ghtt o an i ndi ct m ent . See A pp. at 28- 30 ( t r ans cr i pt fr om gui l t y pl ea hear i ng)
. W i t h r es pect t o t he Sixth A m endment
v io latio n , T o rre s w a iv e d a ll n o n -ju risd ictio n a l d e f e n se s, in c lu d in g th e rig h t to a sp e e d ytrial,
w h en h e p le d gui l t y . See W oodw ar d v. U ni t ed St at es , 426 F. 2d 959, 964 ( 3d C i r . 1 9 7 0 ). Speedyt r i al cl ai m s ar e among t he cl ai m s that are w aive d as a r es ul tof a gui l t ypl ea. See U ni t ed St at es v. Pi err e, 120 F. 3d 1153, 1155 ( 11t h C i r . 1997) ; U ni t ed S ta t es v. C offi n, 76 F
. 3 d 4 9 4 , 4 9 6 (2d C ir
. 1 9 9 6 ). Fi nal l y , T or r es , t hr ough hi s couns el , chal l enges hi s s ent ence under B ooker
. H avi ng det er m i ned thatt he s ent encing issue s appel l antr ai s es ar e bes tdet er m i ned byt he D i s t r i ct C o u rt in th e f

irst in sta n c e , w e w ill v a c a te th e se n ten c e a n d re m a n d f o r re -se n ten c in g in
acc or dance w i t h B ooker
. See gener al l y U ni t ed S t at es v. D avi s , – F. 3d –, 2005 W L 976941 ( 3d C i r . A pr . 28, 2005)
. B eca us e w e r emand forr e- s ent enci ng, w e nee d notaddr es s t he one iss u e ra ise d b y c o u n se l f o r T o rre s in h e r A n d e rs b rie f: w h e th e r th e D istric t C o u rt a b u se d its di s cr et i on i n deny i ng T or r es ’ m ot i on for dow nw ar d departur e. I n anyevent , w e not e thatt heW e not e thatT or r es , act i ng pr o s e, s ubm i t t ed a l et t er i n r es pons e t o an or derof t he 2 c ler k ’s o f

f ice sta tin g th a t h e d id n o t w ish to c h a llen g e h is s e n ten c e u n d e r B o o k e r. T h is cr eat es t he appea r ance of a confl i ct w i t h t he l et t er s ubm i t t ed byhi s couns el r eques t i ng t hat t he s ent ence be vac at ed and the mat t err emanded fo r re -sen te nci ng. H ow ever , w e do not b e liev e th a t T o rre s in ten d e d to w a iv e h is rig h t f o r re -se n ten c in g u n d e r B o o k e r o r th a t h e d id notcons enti n t he l et t ers ubm i t t ed byhi s couns el
. I n par t i cul ar , w e not e t hatT or r es s t at ed th a t “h e w ish e s n o t to c h a llen g e h is s e n ten c e ” b e c a u se o f h is b e lie f

th a t “[ c ]h a llen g in g h is s ent ence w oul d be i r r elev an t at t hi s t i m e do [ sic ] to th a t h is c o n v ictio n w a s a ttain e d in v io latio n o f

h is S ix th A m e n d m e n t R ig h t [ sic ] t o j ur yt r i al
. ” C l ear l y , T or r es w as act i ng under th e e rro n e o u s a ss u m p tio n th a t h is se n ten c e w a s in v a lid b e c a u se o f h is b e lief

th a t h is convi ct i on w as obt ai ned unl aw ful l y , as he ar gued i n hi s i nfor m al br i ef. H ow ever , i ti s cl ear th a t th e re a re n o m e r it o r io u s is su e s o n a p p e a l re latin g to T o rre s’ c o n v ictio n , an d w e w ill a c c o r d i n g l y g r a n t t h e r e q u e s t f o r r e - s e n t e n c i n g b yc o u n s e l f o rTo r r e s i n l i g h to f

t h e S u p r e me C o u rt ’s de cisi o n in B o o k er. issue w o u ld be frivo lou s as i t is w ell -estab li sh ed that a dist ri ct co u rt ’s ref u sal t o d o w n w ard d e p a rt is n o t re v iew a b le o n a p p e a l w h e re it is cle a r th a t th e c o u rt u n d e rsto o d its a u th o rityto d e p a rt a n d e x e rc ise d its d isc re tio n n o t to d o so , as is th e c a se h e re . S e e U n ited S tate s v . G o ri, 3 2 4 F
. 3 d 2 3 4 , 2 3 9 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 3 ). A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill a f f irm T o rre s’ ju d g m e n t o f c o n v ictio n . W e w ill v a c a te h is
se n ten c e a n d re m a n d f

o r re-s e n ten c in g . D e f

e n se c o u n se l’s m o tio n to w ith d ra w p u rsu a n t to A nder s i s her ebydeni ed. 2