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 Thir d C ir c uit 6-3-2010 

# U SA v . P ari s C arney 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 . 09-1199

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 ll a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

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 l l a nova 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 2010 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 nova 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 l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" U SA v . P ar i s C arney " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1207. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1207NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL I N TH E 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- 1199 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v . P AR I S L AM ONT CA RN E Y, A ppel l ant

O n A pp eal F rom t he U nit ed S t at es

D istri ct C o u rt Fort he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a ( D . C . A ct i on N o. 2- 07- cr - 00068- 001) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n . S tew a rt D a lze ll Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay28, 2010 B E F O R E : M c K E E , C hi ef Judge , R E N D E L L and S T A P L E T O N , C i r cui tJudges ( O pi ni on Fi l ed: J une 3, 2010)

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT2

ST A PL E T O N , C i r cui tJ udge:

Par i s L amont C arneyappea l s hi s convi ct i ons forbank r obberyi n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 2113( d) and us i ng a fi r earm i n r el at i on t o a cr i m e of vi ol ence i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . § 9 2 4 (c). H is at torn eyh as m o v ed to w ith d raw h is r ep rese n tat ion u n d er A nders v. C a lif o rn ia , 386 U . S. 738, 87 S. C t . 1396, 18 L . E d. 2d 493 ( 1967) . W e w i l l gr antt he
m o tio n to w ith d ra w a n d 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. T hi s C our t ’ s rul es pr ovi de that“[w ] her e, upon r evi ew of the di s t r i ctcour tr ecor d, t r i al couns el i s per s uaded thatt he appe al pr es ent s no i s s ue of e ven ar guabl e mer i t , couns el
m ayfi l e a mot i on t o w i t hdr aw and s uppor t i ng br i ef pur s uantt o A nd ers . ” 3 d Ci r . L AR 1 0 9 . 2 (a). If w e c o n cu r w ith tr ial co u n sel’s asse ssm en t, w e “ w il l gran t [th e] A nd ers m ot i on, and di s pos e of the appe al w i t houtappoi nt i ng new couns el . ” I d. A ccor di ngl y , our “i nqui r yw hen couns el s ubm i t s an A nd ers br i ef i s t hus t w ofol d . . . : ( 1) w hethercouns el adequa t el yful fi l l ed the rul e’ s r equi r ement s ; and ( 2) w hetheran i ndepende ntr evi ew of the
r ecor d pr es ent s anynonfr i vol ous i s s ues . ” U n itedS ta tes v . Y

o u la , 241 F. 3d 296, 300 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). O ur r eview of the recor d h as conv i nced us t hat tri al cou nsel ’s A nd ers b rie f is adequa t e and thatt her e ar e no nonfr i vol ous gr ounds on w hi ch t o chal l enge the j udgm ent of convi ct i on.3

T he D i s t r i ctC our tpr oper l ydeni ed C arney ’ s m ot i on foracqui t t al on t he gr ound t hatt he governm enthad fa i l ed t o pr ove thatt he cr edi tuni on t hatw as r obbed w as f e d e ra llyin su re d . A t trial, a c re d it u n io n e m p lo y e e tes tifie d th a t th e d e p o sits o f th e c re d it uni on w er e fe der al l yi ns ur ed thr ough t he N at i onal C r edi tA s s oci at i on on t he dat e of the
r obbery . T he governm ental s o i nt r oduced, w i t houtobj ect i on, a s el f- authent i cat i ng C e rtific a te o f

In su ra n c e d a ted o n lytw o m o n th s a f ter th e ro b b e rye v id e n c in g th a t th e c re d it uni on’ s acc ount s w er e fe der al l yi ns ur ed begi nni ng i n 1971 and r emai ned i ns ur ed as of the d a te o f th e C e rt if

ic a te . T h is e v id e n c e w a s s u f f ic ie n t to c a rr yth e g o v e rn m e n t’ s b u rd e n . See, e. g. , U

nited S t ates v. McInt osh , 4 6 3 F .2 d 2 5 0 (3 d C ir. 1 9 7 2 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. A buhour an , 162 F. 3d 230, 243 ( 3d C i r . 1998) ( exi s t ence of fe der al i ns ur ance w as pr oven b ytes tim o n yo f

b a n k e m p lo y e e a n d F D IC re p re se n tativ e w h e re ju ro r w o u ld re a so n a b ly h a v e u n d e rsto o d th e w itn e ss e s to re f e r to th e tim e o f

th e o f f e n se s c h a rg e d ); U

ni t ed Stat es v. R us an , 460 F. 3d 989, 994 ( 8t h C i r . 2006) ( phot ocopyof FD I C pl aque a nd t es t i m onyof b a n k e m p lo y e e p ro v e d e x iste n c e o f f e d e ra l in su ra n c e c o v e ra g e ); U ni t ed Stat es v. Hi cks , 217 F. 3d 1038, 1044- 45 ( 9t h C i r . 2000) ( t es t i m onyof bank e m pl oy ee thatbank w as fede r al l yi ns ur ed on the dat e fa l s e s t at ement s w er e made t o i tand corr obor at ed by
c e rtific a tes o f

in su ra n c e w e re su f

f icie n t to p ro v e th e b a n k w a s f e d e ra llyin su re d ); U

ni t ed S ta tes v . H

a rr is , 165 F. 3d 1062, 1066 ( 6t h C i r . 1999) ( t es t i m onyof bank’ s fr aud i nves t i gat orw ho al s o di s pl ay ed a c er t i fi cat e of i ns ur ance w as s uffi ci entt o pr ove theI n t he cour s e of ouri ndepende ntr evi ew , w e have al s o cons i der ed w hethert he D i s t r i ct 1 C o u rt ’s d e n ia l o f

C a rn e y ’s R u le 3 3 m o tio n f o r a n e w tr ia l p re s e n ts a n o n f ri v o lo u s is s u e . W e c o n c lu d e th a t itd o e s n o t. W h a t C a rn e yc h a ra c ter ize s a s “ n e w e v id e n c e ” w a s n o t o n ly know n t o hi m att he t i m e of tr i al butw as al s o i nt r oduced a s evi dence , and ar gued by c o u n se l, at trial. 4 ex ist en ce o f f

ed era l i n su ran ce ). 1 B eca us e ouri ndepende ntr evi ew of the r ecor d fai l s t o r evea l anynonfr i vol ous gr ounds forappea l , w e w i l l gr antcouns el ’ s m ot i on t o w i t hdr aw and w i l l aff i r m t he ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt. In a d d iti o n , w e c e rtify th a t th e iss u e s p re se n ted in th is appea l l ack l egal m er i tand thus t hatcouns el i s notr equi r ed t o fi l e a pe t i t i on forw r i tof
ce rt iorari w ith the S u p rem e C o u rt . 3 d C ir . L A R 1 0 9 . 2 (b).