2003 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 6-9-2003 

# U SA v . C l a rk 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 . 02-3188

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t 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 sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2003 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 sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" U SA v . C l a rk " (2003). 2003 D e cisio n s . P ape r 473. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003/473NOT PRECE DENTI AL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT

___________ No. 02-3188

___________ UNITED S TATES OF AMERI CA

v. KASIMU CLARK

Ap pellan t.

___________ On A ppeal from the Un ited States District Co urt

for the D istrict of Delaw are (Crim. No. 1: 02-CR-00002 ) Distri ct Judge: The Honorable Sue L. Robinson

___________ Submitte d Pursuant to Third Circ uit L. A.R. 34.1( a)

June 5, 2003 Be for e: B AR RY and FU EN TE S, Circuit Judges and M CL AU GH LIN *, Distri ct Judge (Opinion Fi led: J une 9, 2003)

* The Honorable Mary A. McLaughlin, United States Distri ct Judge for the East ern District of P enn sylvan ia, sittin g by d esig natio n.

________________________ OPINI ON OF THE COURT

________________________1 U.S .S.G . § 5C 1.1(c)( 2) pro vides , in pertin ent pa rt: (c) I f the appl icabl e guidel ine rangeis i n Zone B of the Se nt en cin g T ab le, th e m in im um ter m m ay b e s ati sf ied by – (2) a se ntence of i mprisonment t hat inc ludes a term of supervi sed rel ease with a conditi on that s ubsti tutes community confinement or home detenti on accordi ng -2- FU EN TE S, Circuit

Judge : On M arch 28, 2002, Kasimu Clark ent ered a pl ea of guil tyto one count of passi ng counterf eit c hecks in vi olati on of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 513. On July 23, 2002, Clark was senten ced to a term of im prison men t of 10 mo nths a nd w as ord ered to mak e restitutio n in the amount of $6, 990 and to paya specia l asse ssment of $100. Clark’s counsel fi led a brief pur suant t o An ders v . Califo rnia , 386 U.S. 738 ( 1967), expressing hi s beli ef that Clark cannot

rais e any non- frivol ous iss ues for our review, and direct

ing us, as is required under And ers , to th e issu es th at he tho ugh t Cla rk m igh t raise on a ppe al. The parti es adopted t

he findi ngs and guidel ine cal culations of the Presentence Repo rt. With a total offen se level of 8 a nd a C riminal History Categ ory of II, Clark’s sentenci ng range was 4-10 months of incar ceration. Cl ark’s c ounsel does not conte nd that t hese cal culations were wrong or t hat the10 month sentenc e imposed bythe dis tri ct court was i llegal. The s ole is sue prese nted for our consider ation i s whether the dist rict court abus ed its discr etion i n denyi ng Clark’s request to serve his se ntence vi a the sub stitute con fine me nt alt ern ative of h om e de tenti on p rov ided by U .S.S .G. § 5C1 .1(c)(2). 1to the schedule in subsecti on (e), provided that at least one mo nth is sat isfie d by im priso nm ent[ .] U.S.S.G . § 5C1 .1(c)(2). -3- At th e time of se ntenc ing, C lark ha d serv ed ap prox imate ly 4 mon ths of his sentencebecause hi s incarceration commenced on April 1, 2002, when he reported to the United S tates Ma rshal’s Service as he w as ordered to after pleading guilty. Clark’s
coun sel req uested that the district co urt ord er that a ny portion of C lark’s se ntenc e in
exc ess o f the min imu m g uid eline sen tenc e of 4 m ont hs b e se rve d th rou gh h om e de tenti on. The district c ourt ruled:

I have revi ewed the prese ntence r eport carefull y and under the circumst ances . . . we don’t haveany record of the defendant working sinc e 1999 so I’m not exactl y sure what he has been doing over t

he past fe w years but it

hasn’t been productive from wh at I can tell. In any ev ent, I resp ectfu lly decline to adopt counsel ’s rec ommendation and I am goi ng to sentence . . . t he defendant to a term of 10 months which is wit hin the sentenci ng guideli ne. Join t Ap pen dix at A -26
. A defendant may appe al from a se ntence i mposed by t he dist rict court onl y i f the sentence(1) was imposed i n violat ion of la w, (2) was impose d as a res ult of an incorrect applic ation o f the se ntenc ing g uidelin es, (3) is g reater th an tha t specif ied in th e app licable guideli ne range, or (4) was i mposed for an offensefor which the re is no sentenci ng gui delin e an d is p lainl y unre aso nab le. See 18 U .S.C. § 374 2(a); United States v. Torres , 251 F.3 d 13 8, 15 1 (3 d C ir. 20 01) , cert. denied , 534 U.S. 936 ( 2001). Here, Clark does-4-

not, and indeed cannot , rai se any of the above bas es for appeal ing his sentence . “We do not have j urisdi ction to review a sentencing court’s di scretionaryrefusalto impose a substi tute de tenti on under Guideli nes section 5C1.1(c )(2). ” Un ited Sta tes v. P erakis , 937 F.2d 11 0, 111 (3d Cir. 1991 ). Af ter care fully revie win g the b riefs an d acc om panying mate rials of r ecord , we w ill dismis s the appea l of thesentenceimposed bythe dis tri ct court . Counsel c onducted a conscient

ious re view of the r ecord and concl uded that there were no non-fri volous i ssues th at c ou ld be ra ise d o n a pp ea l, a s re qu ire d b y And ers , 386 U.S. at 744. We have conducted an i ndependent exami nation of the rec ord before us , and we agree wit h counsel that t here are no non-fri volous i ssues t hat jus tify

review. Becaus e counsel ha s complied with allof the proc edures spe cifi ed in And ers , we w ill grant h is mo tion fo r with draw al. For th e fore goin g reas ons, w e con clude that w e lack appe llate jurisd iction o ver this ap pe al an d wi lldi smi ss it an d gr an t c oun se l’ s r eq ue st to wit hdr aw.

_____________________________ TO THE CLERK OF THE CO URT: Kindlyfilethe fore going Opinion. By th e C our t,
/S/ JudgeJuli o M. Fuentes Circuit Judge