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 Third C ir c uit 9-30-2009 

# U SA v . Rob e r t Hud son P re c e de nt i al or N on-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-3133

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al works at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re 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 Third C irc 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 by 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 more 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 . Ro be r t Hud s on" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 580. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2009/580NOT 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. 07- 3133

_____________ U N IT E D S T A T E S O F A M E R IC A ,

v. RO BE RT HUDS ON, 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 E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C r i m i nal N o. 05- cr - 0229) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J ames T. G i l es

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

on Sept ember29, 2009 B efor e: R E N D E L L and A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udges , and M cV E R R Y , * D i s tr i ctJ udge ( Fi l ed: Sept ember30, 2009)

__________ OP I NI ON

__________

__________________ * H onor abl e Ter r ence F. M cV erry , J udge of the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe W e s te rn D is tr ic t o f

P e n n s y lv a n ia , s ittin g b yd e s ig n a tio n . R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJ udge.H u d so n p led g u iltyto p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to d istrib u te c o c a in e b a se (“ c ra c k ” ), in 1 v io latio n o f

2 1 U .S .C . § § 8 4 1 (a )(1 ) a n d 8 4 1 (b )(1 )(A ); p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to d istrib u te co ca ine, i n v iolati o n o f 2 1 U . S . C . § § 8 4 1 (a)(1) a n d 8 4 1 (b)(1 )(B ); p o sses sion o f a firearm i n fur ther ance of a drug tr aff i cki ng offe ns e, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 924( c) ( 1) ; and p o s s e s s io n o f

a f ir e a rm b ya c o n v ic te d f

e lo n , in v io la tio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 (g )( 1 ). I ti s uncl earw hi ch or der s H uds on i nt ends t o appea l . T he not i ce of appea l fi l ed by 2 defe ns e couns el s ol el yr efe r ence s the j udgm entof s ent ence –notthe j udgm entof con vict i on ; ho w ever, cou nsel ’s A nd ers br i ef a nal y zes the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s di s pos i t i on of H uds on’ s m ot i on t o s uppr es s , and the cove rpage of the br i ef s t at es , “A ppeal fr om the J udgm entof C onvi ct i on and Sent ence E nt er ed i n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our t . ” B eca us e H uds on di d notfi l e a pro se br i ef, w e ca nnotconcl us i vel ydet erm i ne w hetherhe in ten d e d to c o n f

in e th e a p p e a l to h is s e n ten c e . G iv in g H u d so n e v e ryb e n e f it o f th e d o u b t, and fi ndi ng no pr ej udi ce t o the governm ent , w hi ch has addr es s ed the val i di tyof the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s supp res si on order i n it s bri ef, w e w i l l con si der both argum ents . T he D i stri ctC ou rthad j uri sdi ct i on pu rs uan tt o 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 23 1. W e exerci se 3 ju ri s d ic tio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . U n itedS ta tes v . T

a n n is , 9 4 2 F . 2 d 1 9 6 , 1 9 7 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 1 ). 2 R obertH uds on pl ed gui l tyt o drug and fi r earm - r el at ed off ens es , and w as s ent ence d t o ei ghty ear s ’ i m pr i s onm ent . A ft erH uds on fi l ed a not i ce of appea l , defe ns e couns el 1 m o v ed to w ith d raw , fil ing a b ri ef u n d er A n d e rs v . C a lif

o rn ia , 3 8 6 U . S . 7 3 8 (19 6 7 ), i ndi cat i ng thatno non- fr i vol ous i s s ues exi s t . B eca us e w e agr ee thatH uds on does not 2 pr es enta col or abl e cl ai m on appea l , w e w i l l aff i r m the J udgm entand C om m i t m entO r der o f th e D istric t C o u rt. 3 T he s al i entfac t s ar e notdi s put ed. O ffi cer s Y oungerand W i l l i ams not i ced thatthe vehi cl e H uds on w as dr i vi ng di d nothave a r equi r ed r egi s tr at i on s t i ckerdi s pl ay ed on ei therthe r earw i nds hi el d orl i cens e pl at e. T he off i cer s s ubs equent l yobs erved H uds on c h a n g e l a n e s wi th o u ts i g n a l i n g a n d p a r k o n th e r i g h ts i d e o f th e s tr e e t . Of

f i c e r s W i l l i a msH uds on al s o m oved t o s uppr es s unw arned i ncul pat orys t at ement s m ade t o pol i ce a ft er 4 hi s arr es t . T he D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed the mot i on and s uppr es s ed the s t at ement s . T he g o v e rn m e n t d id n o t c ro s s -a p p e a l th is ru lin g . 3 a n d Y o u n g e r t h e n a p p ro a c h e d th e d ri v e r a n d p a s s e n g e r s id e o f H u d s o n ’s c a r, r e s p e c tiv e ly. St andi ng out s i de hi s vehi cl e, the off i cer s obs erved a pl as t i c s andw i ch bag w i th a r ed m arki ng i n the ce nt ercuphol derof the ca r . I ns i de the bag w er e numer ous s m al l ert i nt ed baggi es , cont ai ni ng a w hi t e chunkys ubs t ance . Suspe ct i ng thatthe pow derys ubs t ance w as coca i ne, O ffi cerY oungerr eac hed i nt o the vehi cl e t o r etr i eve the baggi es , w her eupon h e g li m p sed a f

ir ea rm b etw ee n the c en ter co n so le an d the p asse n g er se at. T h e o ff icers i mme d i a t e l yp l a c e d Hu d s o n u n d e ra rr e s ta n d r e tr i e v e d th e f i r e a r m. H uds on m oved t o s uppr es s the fi r earm and nar cot i cs s ei zed, ar gui ng thatthe o ff icers lack ed p rob ab le ca u se to sea rch h is ve h icl e. A fter a h ea ri n g , the D istri ct C o u rt deni ed the mot i on, and H uds on ent er ed a c ondi t i onal pl ea a gr eement , i n w hi ch he 4 p rese rve d h is r igh t t o ap p ea l th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s su p p ression ruli n g . T h e D istri ct C o u rt s ent ence d H uds on t o ei ghty ear s ’ i m pr i s onm ent ; H uds on appea l ed. D efe ns e couns el m oved t o w i thdr aw as couns el , fi l i ng an A nd ers br i ef i ndi cat i ng thatno non- fr i vol ous i s s ues exi s tforappea l . W hen pr es ent ed w i th an A nd ers br i ef, our i nq uiryi s tw o-fol d: ( 1) w hethercou nsel ’s A nd ers br i ef i s adequa t e on i t s fac e; and ( 2) w h e th e r o u r i n d e p e n d e n t r e v ie w o f th e re c o rd re v e a ls a n yis s u e s th a t a re n o t f ri v o lo u s . U n itedS ta tes v . Y

o u la , 241 F. 3d 296, 300 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( ci t i ng U n itedS ta tes v . M

a rv in , 211 F. 3d 778, 780 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ) . A n A nd ers b ri ef w il l be d ee m ed ad eq u ate if the C o u rtC o u n sel d id n o t add ress tw o p o tential issue s in h is brief— the v ali d ityo f H u d so n ’s 5 g u il typ lea a n d the leg ali tyo f h is sen tenc e. B ec au se th ese issue s w ere “p aten t[l y ]” f r i v o l o u s , c o u n s e l wa s n o tr e q u i r e d t o a n a l y z e th e m. Ma rv in , 2 1 1 F .3 d a t 7 8 1 . T h e g u ilty pl ea of fer ed bydefe ns e couns el w as acc ept ed bythe governm ent ; ther e i s no i ndi cat i on th a t th e p lea w a s n o t k n o w in g , inte lli g e n t, an d v o lu n tar y . F u rth e r, H u d so n w a iv e d h is 4 is s a tisf ied th a t co u n se l h a s “ th o ro u g h lye x a m in e d th e re c o rd in se a rc h o f a p p e a lab le i ssues” and ex plai ned w hythe is sues ar e fri vo l ou s. Id . C ouns el , how ever , need not a d d re s s e v e ry c o n c e iv a b le c la im . Id . W here cou nsel ’s A nd ers b rie f is a d e q u a te, w e w ill con fi ne o ur i nq uiryt o is sues r ai sed bycou nsel and bythe d efen dan ti n h i s pro se b ri e f. I d. at301 ( ci t i ng U

ni t ed Stat es v. W

agner , 1 0 3 F .3 d 5 5 1 , 5 5 2 -5 3 (7 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 )) . A l though H uds on di d notfi l e a pr o s e bri ef, defe nse cou nsel ’s A nd ers br i ef a p p e a rs a d e q u a te o n its f a c e . C o u n se l ad d re ss e s th e sin g le is su e p re se rv e d f o r a p p e a l in H uds on’ s gui l typl ea: w hetherthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed i n nots uppr es s i ng the gun and nar cot i cs s ei zed f

r om H uds on’ s car . C ouns el concl udes thati ti s a fr i vol ous i s s ue on appea l beca us e pol i ce l aw ful l ys t opped H uds on fortw o tr aff i c i nfr act i ons — dr i vi ng w i thouta pr operr egi s tr at i on s t i cker and cha ngi ng l anes w i thouts i gnal i ng— and the pr es ence of nar cot i cs i n the off i cer s ’ pl ai n vi ew pr ovi ded pr obabl e ca us e t o bel i eve that H uds on w as engage d i n cr i m i nal act i vi ty . A ccor di ngl y , defe ns e couns el r eas ons that pol i ce w er e ent i t l ed t o conducta w arr ant l es s s ear ch of H uds on’ s car , and thats ei zur e of the n arcot i cs and g un w as perm i ssi ble. W e con cl ud e that coun sel ’s A nd ers b rie f re f lec ts cons ci ent i ous exami nat i on of the r ecor d, and thatcouns el i dent i fi ed the pert i nenti s s ues o n a p p e a l. A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill c o n f in e o u r a n a ly sis to th e sin g le is su e ra ise d in 5r i ghtt o appea l hi s s ent ence , w hi ch, i n anyevent , w as bel ow the appl i cabl e gui del i nes

ra n g e o f 1 3 5 to 1 6 8 m o n th s. A c c o rd in g ly , co u n se l’s o m iss io n o f th e se iss u e s f

ro m h is b ri e f w a s n o t in a d e q u a te to a s s is t u s in o u r r e v ie w . S e e L .R . 1 0 9 .2 (a ); see al so Y o u la , 241 F. 3d at302. S e e T ex a s v . Br o wn , 46 0 U . S . 73 0, 73 3-34 (19 83 ) ( fi nd i ng probab l e cause to arres t 6 defe ndantand s ear ch hi s vehi cl e, w her e pol i ce obs erved a w hi t e pow derys ubs t ance , s m al l pl as t i c vi al s , and knott ed, uni nfl at ed pl as t i c partybal l oons –comm onl yus ed n a rc o tics p a c k a g in g – in h is c a r); U ni t ed Stat es v. G r een , 560 F. 3d 853, 858 ( 8th C i r . 2009) (find ing p rob ab le ca u se to b eli ev e tha t “clear p last ic ba g co n tai n ing a w h it e p o w d ery su b sta n c e ” d isc o v e re d in d e f e n d a n t’s k itch e n w a s illeg a l d ru g s); U n itedS ta tes v . R o sa rio , 638 F. 2d 460, 462 ( 2d C i r . 1980) ( fi ndi ng pr obabl e ca us e forarr es tw her e def endant furt i vel ycarr i ed a pl as t i c bag c ont ai ni ng a s ubs t ance thatl ooked l i ke coc ai ne t o a ca r c o n tain in g tw o m e n a t 1 1 :0 0 p .m . an d d isp layed th e b a g f o r th e ir in sp e c tio n ); see al so U ni t ed Stat es v. G ar ner , 9 0 7 F .2 d 6 0 , 6 2 (8 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 ) ( “ P ro b a b le c a u s e d e m a n d s . . . 5 couns el ’ s br i ef— w hetherthe D i s tr i ctC our tpr oper l yadmi t t ed the gun and drugs r ecove r ed dur i ng the w arr ant l es s s ear ch of H uds on’ s vehi cl e. A tthe out s et , w e not e thatpol i ce l aw ful l ys t opped H uds on’ s vehi cl e bas ed on se p a ra te tra f

f ic v io latio n s— h is f

a ilu re to d isp lay a re g istra tio n stic k e r o n h is w in d sh ield or l i cens e pl at e, 75 Pa. C . S. § 1332( a) , and hi s fai l ur e t o s i gnal befor e cha ngi ng l anes , 75 P a . C .S . § 3 3 3 4 A . See W hr en v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 517 U . S. 806, 810 ( 1996) ( “A s a gene r al m a tter, th e d e c isio n to sto p a n a u to m o b ile is r e a so n a b le w h e re th e p o lice h a v e p ro b a b le caus e t o bel i eve thata tr aff i c vi ol at i on has occurr ed. ”) . Fur ther , once the off i cer s , w ho h a d su b sta n tial e x p e rie n c e w ith d ru g -re late d a rre sts , g lim p se d m u lti p le m a rk e d p las tic baggi es cont ai ni ng a w hi t e chunkys ubs t ance i n the ce nt ercuphol der , theypos s es s ed pr obabl e ca us e t o bel i eve thatthe baggi es cont ai ned i l l egal drugs , and thatH uds on w as in v o lv e d in c rim in a l ac tiv ity . A t th a t p o in t, po lice w e re e n tit led to a rre st H u d so n a n d to 6onl ythatthe fa ct s avai l abl e t o a r eas onabl ycaut i ous m an w oul d w arr anta bel i ef that

c e rt a in ite m s m a yb e c o n tr a b a n d . . . .” ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ). See Thor nt on v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 5 4 1 U .S . 6 1 5 , 6 2 0 -2 2 (2 0 0 4 ); Br o wn , 460 U . S. at733- 7 3 4 ; N ew Y ork v. B el t on , 453 U . S. 454, 460 ( 1981) ( “[W ] hen a pol i ceman has m ade a l aw ful cus t odi al arr es tof the occ upantof an a ut om obi l e, he may , as a cont empora neous in c id e n t o f

th a t ar re st, se a rc h th e p a ss e n g e r c o m p a rtm e n t o f th a t au to m o b ile.” ); see al so Mar yland v. D

ys on , 527 U . S. 465, 465- 66 ( 1999) ( uphol di ng w arr ant l es s s ear ch of v eh icl e w h ere p o li ce p o sses sed p rob ab le ca u se to b eli ev e itco n tai n ed il lega l dru g s); C al i f or ni a v. C ar ney , 471 U . S. 386, 394- 95 ( 1985) ( fi ndi ng pr obabl e ca us e t o conduct w arr ant l es s s ear ch of mobi l e home w her e pol i ce pos s es s ed evi dence thatdefe ndantw as di s tr i but i ng a contr ol l i ng s ubs t ance fr om the vehi cl e) ; U ni t ed Stat es v. B ur t on , 288 F. 3d 9 1 , 1 0 0 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 ) (“ T h e a u to m o b ile e x c e p tio n to th e w a rra n t re q u ire m e n t p e rm its l aw enfo rcem ent t o sei ze and sear ch an autom ob i l e w i tho ut a w arr ant i f ‘pr ob able cause ex ist s to b eli ev e itco n tai n s co n tr ab an d . ’”) (i n terna l ci tat ion o m itted). 6 s ear ch the pas s engercompar t m entof hi s vehi cl e. B eca us e the s ear ch of the vehi cl e w as 7 l aw ful , contr aband r ecove r ed fr om the ca r , i ncl udi ng the nar cot i cs and fi r earm , w as ad m issi b le. H en ce , w e c o n clud e tha t th e D istri ct C o u rtp rop erlyd en ied d ef en d an t’ s m oti on t o sup press , and that H ud son’s Fou rth A m end m ent chal l eng e i s m eri t l ess. C o n c lu d in g th a t H u d so n f a ils to ra ise a n o n -f

riv o lo u s a rg u m e n t o n a p p e a l, w e w ill A F F IR M th e Ju d g m e n t an d C o n v ictio n O rd e r o f th e D istric t C o u rt a n d , in a se p a ra te o rd e r, w ill g ra n t c o u n s e l’ s m o tio n to w ith d ra w .