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 6-13-2003 

# U S A v . Alex a nde r 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 . 02-3933

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 . Alex a nde r " (2003). 2003 D e cisio n s . P ape r 459. 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_2003/459* Honorable Mary A. McLaughli n, Unite d States Distri ct Judge for the East ern District of P enn sylvan ia, sittin g by d esig natio n. NOT PRECEDE NTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT 

### No. 02-3933
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. MARIA F. ALEXANDER, Appellant
APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DIST RICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY D.C. Crim. No. 00- cr-00692 Distri ct Judge: The Honorable Stephen M. Orlof sky
Submitte d Under Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

June 6, 2003
Be for e: B AR RY , FU EN TE S, Circuit Judges , and M cLA UG HL IN * (Opinion Fi led: J une 13, 2003)

OPI NION2

BA RR Y, Circuit

Judge On April 19, 2002, defendant Maria F. Alexander pl ed guilt y t o a charge of knowingly making fals e statements and re present ations in connection with her applic ation fo r a nd rec ei ptof

worke rs ’ c omp en sa ti on b en ef it s, in vi ol atio n of

18 U .S .C . § 192 0. On October 11, 2002, she was sente nced to fi ve years probat ion and required to pay restitution in t

he amount of $27,722. 00 and a speci al ass essment of $100. On October 21, 200 2, a tim ely Notic e of A ppea l was filed o n def enda nt’s be half. C oun sel sub sequ ently file d a brief

pursuant to An ders v . Califo rnia , 386 U .S. 738 (196 7), and mo ved to withdraw from the case becau se, as she recites, there are no non-frivol ous issues to rais e on appeal. The Distri ct Court ha d juri sdiction pursuant to 18 U.S. C. § 3231, and appell ate j urisdi ction i s proper i n this Court under 28 U.S. C. § 1291. For her part, de fendant has file d a pro se Informal Brief, in which she alleges, among other things, that s he recei ved ineffect ive ass ist ance of counsel , and maint ains t hat the “District

Court based its decision on [her] attorney’s entering a guiltyplea against [he r] w ishe s,” a nd t hat d efe nse cou nse l “ign ore d all o f [h er] re leva nt m edic al his tory . . . wh ich is critic al fo r un der stan din g th e ev ents in th is ca se.” (Inf orm al B riefat 1, 3 ). If, “af ter a fu ll exam ination of all th e pro ceed ings,” d efen se co unse l “dec ide[s th at] the case is wholl y frivolous ,” counselmay expl ain thi s conclus ion to t he court upon req ues ting leav e to w ithd raw . And ers , 386 U.S. at 744. “ If [the c ourt] so finds[ ,] i t may gran t coun sel's requ est to w ithdraw and d ismiss th e app eal inso far as fede ral requ ireme nts3

are concerned, or pr oceed to a dec isi on on the meri ts, if st ate l aw so requir es. On the other hand, if it

finds anyof the l egal poi nts ar guable on their meri ts (and theref ore not frivol ous) it

must, prior t o decisi on, affor d the indi gent the assis tance of couns el to argue the appeal .” Id . An app eal m ay be dee me d fr ivo lou s if it “ lack s an y basis in law or f act.” M cCo y v. Cou rt of A ppea ls of W iscon sin , 486 U .S. 429, 439 n. 10 (198 8). Whether or not a ple a hearing was prope rly conducted pur suant

to Fed . R. Crim. P. 11 and whether or not

a dist rict court compl ied with t

he mandates of Fed. R. Crim. P. 32 in co ndu cting a se nten cing hea ring are q ues tion s of law , and our rev iew is ple nar y. See , e.g. , United States v. Ebel , 299 F .3d 18 7, 191 (3d C ir. 2002 ); Un ited Sta tes v. B ertoli , 40 F.3d 138 4, 139 7 (3d Cir. 19 94); Un ited Sta tes v. B entz , 21 F .3d 3 7, 38 (3d Cir . 199 4). Having thoroughl y r eviewed the r ecord in t his cas e, we conclude t

hat the re exis t no nonfrivol ous iss ues and that the requirements s et fort h in Rules 11 and 32 were sati sfied dur ing the e ntry of def end ant’ s ple a an d he r sen tenc ing , resp ectiv ely. Sp ec ifi ca lly, t he re co rd re fle cts th at d ef en da nt ’s p lea w as kn ow in g a nd vo lu nt ar y, and that at al l ti mes she understood what was taking pl ace. Defendant was sworn and advised of he r ri ghts, the possible rami fications of her plea, and the range of opti ons availa ble to h er. Sh e evin ced n o eva sion o r lack o f com preh ensio n w hen s he ad mitted to willfullysubmitting a fraudulent form to the Office of Worker Co mpensation Programs, furnis hing the f

actualbasis f

or her pl ea. The Dist

rict Court ascer

taine d that t

he plea was not the product of anyimproper coe rcion. The Court ascertaine d as well t hat defendant4

had revie wed the Rule 11 form, t hat she under stood i t, a nd that s he had fil led it out
ac cu ra tel y. At the sentencing hearing, t here were si milarl y no i nfirmit ies t hat would affor d a basis f or a nonfri volous appeal . Defendant and he r counselhad the opport unity to go
over and d iscuss th e Pre senten ce R epor t, and d id so. T hey also h ad the opp ortun ity to
comm ent on an d object to the P resentence R eport, and de clined to do so . The C ourt concluded that the applic able gui deline range was zero to six months , and that a fi ne and the interest requirem ent on the a mou nt of restitution wo uld be w aived. D efenda nt’s
sen tenc e fe ll far belo w th e sta tuto ry ma xim um term of im priso nm ent o f fiv e year s, see 18 U.S .C. § 192 0, an d w ell w ithin the p aram eters of 1 8 U .S.C . § 35 61( c)(1 ) an d U .S.S .G. § 5B1 .2(a)(1). Defendant attempts to s et fort h an ineffect

ive ass ist ance of counselclai m by stating, a mong other thi ngs, that she di d “not do anyself empl oyment work, ” and that her counsel “ha d medical i nformati on perti nent to t his cas e that

she did not

present [which]
wou ld give clear ev idence to sh ow h er innocen ce.” (Inform al Brief at 4-5). T his Cou rt will not general ly consider

a defendant’ s clai m of ineffective ass ist ance of counselon dire ct ap pea l. See , e.g. , United States v. Cia nci , 154 F .3d 10 6, 113 (3d C ir. 1998 ); United States v. Gaydos , 108 F .3d 50 5, 512 , n. 5 (3d Cir. 19 97); United S tates v. Cocive ra , 104 F.3d 566, 570 ( 3d Cir. 1996) (noti ng that c ollateral, rather than direct, atta ck provides the opp ortun ity to deve lop a f actua l basis f or the c laim; g ives the attorne y a chan ce to e xplain5

the chal lenged conduct ; and averts a si tuati on where the attorneyrepres ents t he defendant
on appe al an d i s p la ce d i n the une nvi ab le pos it io n of ar gui ng h is orhe r o wn ineff ective ness). A narro w e xcep tion to th is gen eral rule exists h ow ever, w here “ albeit rare[l y, ] we may have a s uffici ent rec ord on appeal to deci de the i ssue and avoi d the consider able effort of requiring t he defendant to institute a coll atera l procee ding in or der to rai se the i neffecti ve assi stance of counsel cl aim.” Cocive ra , 104 F.3d at 570 -57 1. In light of the de arth of evide nce p ertinen t to the in effe ctive a ssistanc e claim , how ever, th is case cl early

does not come within thi s narrow exception. Having found that

no nonfrivol ous iss ues have been i dentif ied or presented f

or appeal, we will grant

defense counsel ’s reque st t o withdraw and willAFFIRM the judg men t of the Distric t Cou rt.

TO THE CLERK OF THE CO URT: Kindly file the fore going Opinion. /s/ Maryanne T rump B arry Circuit Judge