2008 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 2-19-2008 

# U SA v . Ezell 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 . 06-1874

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_2008

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 2008 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 . E z ell " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1584. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1584T he H onor abl e J os eph H . R odr i guez, U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctJ udge forthe D i s tr i ctof * N ew J er s ey , 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. 06- 1874

UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v . J AM AL EZELL,

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. 02- cr - 0815 (H on orabl e Jan E . D uB ois ) Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J anuary28, 2008 B e f o re : S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge , R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJudge , a n d R O D R IG U E Z , D is tr i ct Judge . * ( Fi l ed: February19, 2008) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT2

S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge . D e f e n d a n t Ja m a l E z e ll ap p e a ls h is c o n v ictio n a n d ju d g m e n t o f se n ten c e . H is att o rne yh as f

il ed a m o ti o n to w ith d raw as c o u n sel an d h as su b m itted a b ri ef u n d er A nd ers v . C a lif o rn ia , 386 U . S. 738 ( 1967) . E zel l fi l ed a pro se b ri e f. W e w ill a f f ir m . I. O n D e c e m b e r 1 7 , 2 0 0 2 , E z e ll w a s c h a rg e d w ith s ix c o u n ts o f ro b b e ry, 1 8 U .S .C . § 1951 ( H obbs A ct ) and § 2, and s i x count s of us i ng a fi r earm dur i ng and i n r el at i on t o a cri m e of v i olence, 18 U . S . C . § 9 24 (c) and § 2 . E zel l , w i th the ass i st ance o f associ at es, r obbed s i x comm er ci al es t abl i s hm ent s atgunpoi nt . D ur i ng fi ve of the r obber i es , the vi ct i m s w er e thr eat ened a nd bound w i th ei thert ape orel ectr i cal w i r e. A ttr i al , the g o v e rn m e n t p re s e n te d , in tera lia , E zel l ’ s tw o w r i t t en conf es s i ons and t es t i m onyof tw o of E zel l ’ s as s oci at es . A j uryconvi ct ed hi m on al l char ges and the di s tr i ctcourts ent ence d E z e ll t o a m a n d a to ryc o n se c u tiv e ter m o f 1 3 2 y e a rs p lu s o n e d a yo f im p riso n m e n t. II. T hi r d C i r cui tL ocal A ppel l at e R ul e 109. 2( a) pr ovi des : “[w ] her e, upon r evi ew of the di s tr i ctcourtr ecor d, tr i al couns el i s per s uaded thatthe appe al pr es ent s no i s s ue of even a r guabl e mer i t , tr i al couns el m ayfi l e a mot i on t o w i thdr aw and s uppor t i ng br i ef pur s uantt o A n d e rs v . C a lif o rn ia . . . . ” O uri nqui ryw hen couns el s ubm i t s an A nd ers br i ef i s “tw 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)“The dut i es of couns el w hen pr epar i ng an A nd ers br i ef a r e ( 1) t o s at i s fythe courtt hat 1 c o 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 is su e s, a n d (2 ) to expl ai n w hythe i s s ues ar e fr i vol ous . ” U n itedS ta tes v . Y

o u la , 2 4 1 F . 3 d 2 9 6 , 3 0 0 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). “A n ap p ea l on a m att er o f law is fri v o lou s w h ere n o n e o f th e leg al po ints are ar guabl e on thei rm er i t s . ” I d. a t 3 0 1 . Iss u e s th re e a n d f

o u r a re n o t ar g u a b le o n th e ir m e rits. T h e d istric t co u rt p ro p e rly 2 i ns truct ed the j uryon t he i nt er s t at e comm er ce e l ementforH obbs A ctr obbery . T he c h a rg e is c o n s is te n t w ith o u r p re c e d e n t, s ee e . g. , U ni t ed Stat es v. H

ayw ood , 363 F. 3d 200 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ), and, contr aryt o E zel l ’ s cont ent i ons , di d notdi r ecta ver di ct , amend t he i ndi ctm ent , m i s l ead the j ury , orcr eat e a va r i ance . Fur ther , the di s tr i ctcourtw as not re q u ir e d to a c c e p t E z e ll’ s s u g g e s te d ju ry c h a rg e . 3 w h e th e r a n in d e p e n d e n t r e v ie w o f th e re c o rd p re s e n ts a n yn o n f ri v o lo u s is s u e s .” Y

o u la , 1 241 F. 3d at300. Si nce both E zel l and hi s couns el fi l ed br i efs , ourr evi ew i s gui ded byt he i s s ues ci t ed i n t he pro se and A nd ers b ri e f s . See i d. at301. T he i s s ues r ai s ed ar e: ( 1) su f f icie n c yo f

th e e v id e n c e re g a rd in g th e in ter sta te c o m m e rc e e lem e n t o f th e H o b b s A c t; ( 2) l ength of the s ent ence ; ( 3) err ori n i ns truct i ng the j uryon the i nt er s t at e comm er ce e lem e n t o f

th e H o b b s A c t; an d (4 ) e rro r f o r f a ili n g to g iv e d e f

e n d a n t’s re q u e ste d in ter sta te comm er ce j urychar ge. 2 A. In hi s pro se b rie f

, E z e ll as se rts th e e v id e n c e , tak e n in th e lig h t m o st f a v o ra b le to the governm ent , fai l ed t o es t abl i s h that , as a r es ul tof the r obber i es , i nt er s t at e comm er ce w a s o b s tru c te d , d e la y e d , o r a f f e c te d . S e e Un i t e d

S ta t e s v . I

do wu , 157 F. 3d 265, 268 ( 3d C i r . 1998) ( art i cul at i ng the s uffi ci encyof the evi dence s t andar d) . T he G overnm entneed onl ys how “ the def

endant s ’ conductpr oduced a nyi nt er fer ence w i th oreff ectupon i nt er s t at e comm er ce, w hethers l i ght , s ubt l e oreven pot ent i al . . . . ” H ayw ood , 363 F. 3d atO n e h u n d re d a n d tw e n ty-f iv e y e a rs o f

th e s e n te n c e w e re im p o s e d u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 924( c) ( 1) ( C ) for“a s econd ors ubs equentconvi ct i on underthi s s ubs ect i on. ” W i thout co n side rati o n o f th e § 9 2 4 (c) ch arg es, th e G u ideline Im p ri so n m en t R an g e f o r E ze ll ’s h is to ry a n d c o n d u c t w o u ld b e 1 6 8 to 2 1 0 m o n th s . I n U ni t ed Stat es v. Kel l um , w e re jec ted th e a rg u m e n t th a t a d istric t co u rt h a s a u th o rity 4 u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ) to im p o se a se n ten c e b e lo w th e sta tu to rym in im u m if it bel i eves the s t atut orym i ni m um i s gr eat erthan nec es s aryt o achi eve the goal s of s e n te n c in g . 3 5 6 F .3 d 2 8 5 , 2 8 9 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). T h e tw o n a rr o w e x c e p tio n s in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (e) an d (f) are “the o n lyau tho ri tya d istri ct co u rth as to d ep art be low a m an d atory m i ni m um s ent ence . . . . ” I d. T h i s a r g u m e n ti s f

o r e c l o s e d b y D eal

v. U ni t ed Stat es , 5 0 8 U . S . 1 2 9 (19 9 3 ). 5 4 210. “M or eover , a j urym ayi nferthati nt er s t at e comm er ce w as aff ect ed t o s om e mi ni m al degr ee f r om a s how i ng thatthe bus i nes s as s et s w er e depl et ed. ” I d. a t 2 1 0 ; see al

so U ni t ed Stat es v. C laus en , 328 F. 3d 708, 711 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( “I n anyi ndi vi dual cas e, pr oof of a d e m in im is eff

ecton i nt er s t at e comm er ce i s al l thati s r equi r ed. ”) . H er e, the G overnm entoffe r ed evi dence thatthe bus i nes s es E zel l r obbed pur chas ed s uppl i es and s ol d pr oduct s out s i de of Penns y l vani a and the r obber i es depl et ed the as s et s of the b u s in e s s e s . A c c o rd in g ly, th e re is s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e to s u p p o rt th e ju ry’s g u ilty v e rd ic t. B . A s not ed, E zel l w as s ent ence d t o a mandat orycons ecut i ve t erm of 132 y ear s pl us one day . D ur i ng s ent enci ng, E zel l as s ert ed U ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 3 ( 2005) , r ender ed the pena l typr ovi s i ons of § 924( c) advi s ory and thatthe 132- y ear 4 m an d atorym inim u m sen tenc e is n o t r eq u ir ed u n d er § 9 2 4 (c). 55

Fur ther , E zel l br oughtan as - appl i ed cha l l enge t o hi s § 924( c) s ent ence undert he E i ghth A m endment , the pr i nci pl e of s epar at i on of pow er s , and due pr oces s . I n U ni t ed Stat es v. W

alker , w e re

jected a sim il ar c lai m ch all en g ing a 5 5 -y ea r co n sec u ti v e m an d atory m i ni m um s ent ence , concl udi ng § 924( c) does notvi ol at e due pr oces s ors epar at i on of pow er s . 473 F. 3d 71, 76 ( 3d C i r . 2007) . G ui ded bythe r equi r ementthatw e gr ant

“ su b sta n tial d e f

e re n c e to th e b ro a d a u th o rityth a t leg isla tu re s n e c e ss a rilyp o ss e ss in determ i ning t he types and l i m i t s of pu nis hm ents for cri m es, ” w e fou nd that the “h ars hn ess of [de fenda nt ’ s ] 55- y earm andat orycons ecut i ve s ent ence , bal ance d agai ns tthe gr avi tyof hi s offe ns es , does notvi ol at e the pr opor t i onal i typr i nci pl e of the Ei ghth A m endment . ” I d. a t 8 2 -8 3 . D u rin g a tw o w e e k p e rio d , E z e ll, to g e th e r w ith h is a ss o c iate s, ro b b e d six c o mme r c i a l e s t a b l i s h me n t s a tg u n p o i n t . On f i v e o c c a s i o n s , th e yb o u n d th e i rv i c t i ms befor e l eavi ng the bui l di ng. I n l i ghtof Ezel l ’ s r epea t ed vi ol entconduct , the s ent ence i m pos ed i s notgr os s l ydi s pr opor t i onat e t o the gr avi tyof the cr i m es i n vi ol at i on of the E ig h th A m e n d m e n t. III . F o r t h e f o re g o in g re a s o n s , w e w ill a f f ir m th e c o n v ic tio n a n d ju d g m e n t o f s e n te n c e . D efe ns e couns el ’ s m ot i on t o w i thdr aw i s gr ant ed.