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 9-30-2010 

# U SA v . K elin M anigault 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 . 08-4511

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_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 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 2010 D e c i sion s b y an author i 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 . Ke l in M ani gault " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 535. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/535T he H onor abl e A l an D . L our i e, C i r cui tJ udge forthe U ni t ed St at es C our tof * A ppeal s fort he Feder al C i r cui t , 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. 08- 4511

_____________ UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA

v. KELI N M AN I GA ULT, 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 M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( C r i m i nal N o. 05- 00187) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H on. Sy l vi a H . R ambo Subm i t t ed February25, 2010 B efore: C H A G A R E S , S T A P L E T O N , and L O U R IE, C i rcui tJudg es. * ( Fi l ed: Sept ember30, 2010)

______________ OP I NI ON

______________ C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udge. T hi s m at t eri s befor e the C our ton defe ndantK el i n M ani gaul t ’ s appea l of the2

d e n ial o f h is m o tio n f

o r re lief u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 . F o r th e re a so n s b e lo w , w e w ill vaca t e the or dergr ant i ng t he ce r t i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i t yand di s m i s s the appe al forl ack of ju ri s d ic tio n . I. B eca us e w e w r i t e s ol el yforthe bene fi tof the part i es , w e onl ybr i efl ys um m ar i ze th e e s s e n tia l f

a c ts . O n D ece m ber9, 2004, H arr i s bur g, Penns y l vani a pol i ce r ecove r ed a . 45 cal i ber s emi - aut om at i c handgun a nd t hi r t y - t w o gr ams of coc ai ne bas e w hi l e conduc t i ng an i nvent or ys ear ch of a n i l l egal l yparked ca r . T he vehi cl e w as r egi s t er ed t o R echi na St anl ey , butM s . St anl eyl at eracknow l edged thats he had pur chas ed the ca ron behal f of M ani gaul t , and thathe w as t he oper at orof the ca ratal l t i m es . A w arr antw as i s s ued for M a n ig a u lt’ s a rr e s t. O n M ar ch 29, 2005, pol i ce obs erved M ani gaul ts i t t i ng i n a parked ca r . W hen they a p p ro a c h e d th e v e h icle , M a n ig a u lt fle d , an d th re w a b a g u n d e r a n e a rb yc a r. M a n ig a u lt w as caughtand pl ace d underarr es t , and the bag, w hi ch cont ai ned fort y - one gr ams of c o c a in e b a s e , w a s re c o v e re d . M ani gaul tw as i ndi ct ed on M ay11, 2005 forfi ve count s of fi r earm and drug t r aff i cki ng offe ns es . Pur s uantt o a pl ea a gr eement , he pl eade d gui l t yt o t w o count s of pos s es s i on w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e fi ve gr ams orm or e of c ocai ne bas e, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 (a )( 1 ), a n d th e o th e r c h a rg e s w e re d ro p p e d .3

M ani gaul thad tw o pr i orfel onyconvi ct i ons – one fordrug tr aff i cki ng and one f

or r eckl es s endange r m entof anotherper s on. I n t he Pr es ent ence R epor t( “PSR ”) , the Pr obat i on O ffi cerdet erm i ned thatt hes e tw o convi ct i ons qual i fi ed M ani gaul tas a ca r eer o f f e n d e r u n d e r U n ited S tate s S e n ten c in g G u id e lin e s (“ U .S .S .G .”) § 4 B 1 .1 . T h is i ncr eas ed hi s cr i m i nal hi s t or ycat egoryfr om V t o V I , and w i t h an off ens e l evel of 33, t he re c o m m e n d e d G u id e lin e ra n g e w a s d e te rm in e d to b e 2 3 5 to 2 9 3 m o n th s in p ri s o n . M ani gaul tobj ect ed t o t he PSR , s peci fi cal l yar gui ng thathi s pr i orconvi ct i on for r eckl es s endange r m entw as nota “c r i m e of vi ol ence ” underU . S. S. G . § 4B 1. 2, and thathe t her efor e w as nota ca r eeroffe nder . T he D i s t r i ctC our tr ej ect ed hi s obj ect i ons and se n ten c e d M a n ig a u lt t o 2 3 5 m o n th s o f im p riso n m e n t. O n M a rc h 2 1 , 2 0 0 6 , M a n ig a u lt appea l ed thi s j udgm entt o t hi s C our t . R el y i ng upon ourpr ece denti n U ni t ed St at es v. Par s on, 955 F. 2d 858 ( 3d C i r . 1992) , w e af fi r m ed the j udgm entand det erm i nat i on that rec k less en d an g erm en t i s a c ri m e o f v iolen ce fo r th e p u rpo ses o f d eterm ining w h ethe r a cr i m i nal defe ndanti s a ca r eeroffe nder . U ni t ed St at es v. M ani gaul t , 228 F. A pp’ x 183 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). O n Ju ly1 0 , 2 0 0 8 , M a n ig a u lt file d a m o tio n p u rsu a n t to 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 2 (c ) to r educe hi s s ent ence pur s uantt o t he r etr oact i ve amendm entt o t he cr ack c ocai ne s ent enci ng gui del i nes . O n A ugus t6, the D i s t r i ctC our tagr eed thatthe amendm ent re d u c e d h is o f

f e n s e le v e l to 3 1 , w h ic h re d u c e d h is g u id e lin e ra n g e to 1 8 8 to 2 3 5 m o n th s . T he D i stri ctC ou rtsubsequ entl yreduced M anigaul t ’s sent ence to 18 8 m on t hs.4

A ls o o n J u ly 1 0 , M a n ig a u lt f ile d a c o u n s e le d m o tio n f o r r e lie f u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2255. H e al l eged thr ee gr ounds of i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el : ( 1) thathi s couns el w as i neff

ect i ve fo r fai l i ng t o fil e a m oti on t o co m pel docu m ents regar ding his reckl ess endange r m entconvi ct i on; ( 2) t hathi s couns el w as i neff ect i ve fori nadequa t el yar gui ng t hatr eckl es s endange r m entw as nota cr i m e of vi ol ence ; and ( 3) thathi s couns el w as in e f f e c tiv e f o r f a ili n g to o b

jec t to th e G o v e rn m e n t’s a rg u m e n ts a t se n ten c in g th a t h is car eeroffe ndercl as s i fi cat i on w as appr opr i at e. H e al s o ar gued thathi s s ent ence w as based o n inaccurat e i nfo rm at i on and fal se ass um pti on s i n v i olat i on of the D ue P rocess cl aus e. T he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed M ani gaul t ’ s § 2255 m ot i on, and M ani gaul tfi l ed a tim e ly n o tic e o f

a p p e a l a n d a re q u e s t f

o r a c e rt if

ic a te o f a p p e a la b ility. In h is re q u e st f

o r a c e rtific a te o f

a p p e a lab ili ty , M a n ig a u lt arg u e d th a t h is convi ct i on forr eckl es s endange r m entw as no l ongera cr i m e of vi ol ence bas ed on the Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n B egayv. U ni t ed St at es , 553 U . S. 137 ( 2008) . A l t hough B egayhad bee n deci ded bef or e he f i l ed hi s couns el ed § 2255 mot i on, M ani gaul tdi d not r ai s e B egaybefor e the D i s t r i ctC our torar gue thatther e had be en anyr ece ntchange i n t he re lev a n t law . O n Ju ly1 6 , 2 0 0 9 , a p a n e l o f th is C o u rt g ra n ted a c e rtific a te o f a p p e a lab ili ty o n th e f o llo w in g iss u e s: ( 1) w hetherM ani gaul t m ayr el i t i gat e hi s chal l enge t o hi s car eeroffe nders t atus b a se d o n a c h a n g e in th e a p p lica b le la w ; B e g a yv . U n ited S tate s, 1 2 8 S . C t. 1 5 8 1 (20 0 8 ); U n it ed S tates v . P alum b o , 6 0 8 F . 2 d 5 2 9 , 5 3 3 (3d C ir . 1 9 7 9 ); D avi s v. U ni t ed St at es , 417 U . S. 333 ( 1974) ; ( 2) w hetherM ani g au ltw ai ved th is c laim b yn o t b rin g in g B e g a yto th e D istric t C o u rt’s a tten tio n d e sp ite its av ail ab ility ; ( 3 ) w h at de tai ls of the re ck less en d an g erm en t con v ict ion areW e wi l l a s s u me a r g u e n d o t h a tBe g a ya p p l i e s r e tr o a c t i v e l yt o M a n i g a u l t ’ s c l a i m, 1 s ee Sun B earv. U ni t ed St at es , 611 F. 3d 925 ( 8th C i r . 2010) ; G i l ber tv. U ni t ed St at es , 609 F . 3 d 1 1 5 9 , 1 1 6 5 (11 th C ir . 2 0 1 0 ); W elch v . U n it ed S tat es, 60 4 F . 3 d 4 0 8 (7th C ir . 2 0 1 0 ), and thathi s convi ct i on forr eckl es s endange r m entw oul d no l ongerqual i fyas a cr i m e of v i o l e n c e . S e e Un i t e d S t a t e s v . L e e , 6 1 2 F . 3 d 1 7 0 , 1 9 6 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 1 0 ) . Be c a u s e we concl ude thatt he cl ai m does notpr es enta cons t i tut i onal i s s ue, w e nee d notr eac h t he 5 avai l abl e i n document s appr opr i at e undera Shepar d [v. U ni t ed St at es , 544 U . S. 13 ( 2005) ] anal y s i s ; an d ( 4) the out come of t he s t at e drug char ges p e n d in g d u rin g se n ten c in g a n d th e im p a c t ad d iti o n a l d ru g c o n v ictio n s w o u ld h a v e o n a n yre s e n te n c in g . A pp. at20. II. U nder28 U . S. C . § 2253( c) ( 2) , a ce r t i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i t ym ayi s s ue onl yi f the appl i canthas m ade a s ubs t ant i al s how i ng of the deni al of a c ons t i tut i onal r i ght . W e l ack appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on unl es s t he appl i canthas m ade s uch a s how i ng. U ni t ed St at es v. C eper o, 224 F. 3d 256, 267 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ( en banc ) . I n C eper o, the def endantar gued that th e D istric t C o u rt m isa p p lied th e se n ten c in g g u id e lin e s b e c a u se th e G o v e rn m e n t f a iled to s h o w t h a th e h a d s o l d c r a c k c o c a i n e a n d n o ts o m e o t h e rf o r m o f c o c a i n e b a s e . I d . We concl uded thatw e l acke d j ur i s di ct i on overthe appe al beca us e the mi s appl i cat i on of the g u i d e l i n e s i n t h a tc a s e d i d n o tp r e s e n ta c o n s t i tu t i o n a l i s s u e . Ho we v e r , we n o t e d th a twe w er e nots ugges t i ng t hats uch an e r r orcoul d neverr i s e t o t he l evel of a c ons t i tut i onal depr i vat i on. I d. at268 n. 6. T hus , t he ques t i on i s w hetherthe B egaycl ai m M ani gaul ts eeks t o r ai s e on appe al a lleg e s a n e rro r th a t rise s to th e lev e l o f a v io latio n o f

a c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t. M a n ig a u lt 1 2q u e s t i o n o f wh e t h e rM a n i g a u l twa i v e d h i s Be g a yc l a i m. As f o rt h e c l a i ms M a n i g a u l tr a i s e d i n h i s § 2 2 5 5 mo t i o n i n th e Di s t r i c tCo u r t , we 2 concl ude thatM ani gaul thas notm ade a s ubs t ant i al s how i ng of the deni al of a c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t f

o r e ss e n tiallyth e re a so n s g iv e n b yth e D istric t C o u rt. W e ac know l edge thatone C our tof A ppeal s has addr es s ed a s i m i l arcl ai m bas ed 3 on B egayon appea l fr om t he deni al of a § 2255 mot i on. T he courti n Sun B earbel i eved t hatt he def

endant ’ s B egaycl ai m w as notan or di narycl ai m of the mi s appl i cat i on of the s ent enci ng gui del i nes . R ather , i tbel i eved the cl ai m w as bas ed on a c hange i n t he l aw t hat m a d e th e D istric t C o u rt’s s e n ten c in g c a lcu latio n s u n law f u l. T h e c o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t th is “i nher ent l yr es ul t s i n a compl et e mi s carr i age of j us t i ce a nd pr es ent s exce pt i onal ci r cumst ance s t hatj us t i fycol l at er al r el i ef unde r§ 2255. ” Sun B ear , 611 F. 3d at930 ( quot i ng D avi s , 417 U . S. at346- 47) . W hi l e the Sun B earcour taddr es s ed the 6 cont ends t hathe ar gued i n hi s § 2255 m ot i on that“cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on( s ) l ed t o a s e n te n c e b a s e d o n in a c c u ra te in f o rm a tio n a n d f

a ls e a s s u m p tio n s .” R e p ly B ri e f a t 1 1 . H o w e v e r, M a n ig a u lt w a s n o t se n ten c e d o n in a c c u ra te in f o rm a tio n o r f

a lse a ss u m p tio n s in vi ol at i on of hi s r i ght s t o due pr oces s underthe Fi fth A m endment ; hi s s ent ence w as corr ectun der our casel aw att he ti m e. R at her, the legal con sequen ces of h i s pri or offen se c h a n g e d a f

te r B e g a y . M ani gaul tar gued thathi s s ent enci ng gui del i nes r ange w oul d be 168 t o 210 m ont hs w i t houtt he ca r eeroffe nderdes i gnat i on. A pp. at85. M ani gaul t ’ s s ent ence of 188 m ont hs does notexce ed the maxi m um of thatgui del i nes r ange. N ordoes hi s s ent ence exce ed the s ta tu to ry m a x im u m o f

4 8 0 m o n th s f

o r h is c o n v ic tio n . S e e 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 (b )( 1 )( B )( iii) . M a n ig a u lt h a s n o t m a d e a su b sta n tial sh o w in g o f th e d e n ial o f

a n yc o n stitu tio n a l rig h t; r ather , he al l eges onl yt hat , aft erB egay , the appl i cat i on of the ca r eeroffe nder e n h a n c e m e n t to h is s e n ten c e v io late s th e se n ten c in g g u id e lin e s. U n d e r C e p e ro , this is 3cogni zabi l i t yof the cl ai m under§ 2255, i tdi d notaddr es s w hetherthe cl ai m al l eged a

vi ol at i on of a c ons t i tut i onal r i ghtunder§ 2253( c) ( 2) , a di s t i ncti s s ue. D avi s , 417 U . S. at 3 4 5 -4 7 ; C e p e ro , 2 2 4 F .3 d a t 2 6 7 (“ S e c tio n 2 2 5 5 p e tit io n s . . . se rv e o n lyto p ro tec t a defe ndantfr om a vi ol at i on of the cons t i tut i on orfr om a s t atut orydefe cts o fundament al t hata compl et e mi s carr i age of j us t i ce ha s occurr ed. . . . U nder§ 2253( c) ( 2) , w e have ap p ell ate jurisdicti o n o v er o n lytho se issu es su b stan ti all ysh o w n to d en ya p eti ti o n er a c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t.” ). 7 n o ts u f f i c i e n tf o rt h e i s s u a n c e o f

a c e r t i f i c a t e o f a p p e a l a b i l i t y. III . Fort he above r eas ons , w e w i l l vaca t e the or dergr ant i ng the ce r t i fi cat e of appea l abi l i t yand di s m i s s t he appe al forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on.