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 7-1-2008 

# U SA v . Cuar t a s 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 . 06-4568

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 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 . C uar t as " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 926. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/926NOT 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- 4568

UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. A D RI A N A CU A RT A S, 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 fort he D i s t r i ctC our tof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C r i m . N o. 04- cr - 00609- 2) D i stri ctJudg e: H on . D i ckinson R . D ebev ois e Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 27, 2008 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , B A R R Y and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges

Fi l ed J ul y1, 2008

OP I NI ONTh e Di s t r i c t Co u r th a d j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 1 8 U. S . C. 1 § 3231. W e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew t hi s m att erpur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. 2 SL O V I T E R , C i r cui tJ udge. A dr i ana Cuar t as , w ho w as convi ct ed bya j uryof cons pi r acyt o di s t r i but e one k il o g ram o r m o re o f h ero in, i n v iolati o n o f 2 1 U . S . C . § 8 4 6 , an d sen tenc ed to the statu tory m a n d a to ry m in im u m s e n te n c e o f 1 2 0 m o n th s im p ri s o n m e n t, s e e 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 (b )(1 )(A ), ap p e a ls b o th h e r c o n v ictio n a n d se n ten c e . H e r c o u n se l, w h o f iled a tim e ly 1 appea l , fi l ed a mot i on t o w i t hdr aw as couns el and a br i ef i n s uppor tof thatm ot i on pur s uantt o A nder s v. C al i forni a, 386 U . S. 738, 744 ( 1967) . U nderA nder s , i f, aft er r evi ew of the di s t r i ctcour tr ecor d and a c ons ci ent i ous i nves t i gat i on, couns el i s convi nced t hatt he appe al pr es ent s no i s s ue of a r guabl e mer i t , couns el m aypr oper l yas k t o w i t hdr aw w hi l e fi l i ng a br i ef r efe r r i ng t o anyt hi ng i n t he r ecor d t hatm i ghtar guabl ys uppor tthe app eal . Id. at74 1-42, 744. To sat i sfythe A nd ers requi rem ents , app el l ant’ s coun sel m ust

“ sa tisf yth e c o u rt th a t h e o r sh e h a s th o ro u g h lysc o u re d th e re c o rd in se a rc h o f a p p e a lab le i s s ues ” and then “e xpl ai n w hyt he i s s ues ar e fr i vol ous . ” U ni t ed St at es v. M arvi n, 211 F . 3 d 7 7 8 , 7 8 0 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) (cit ing U n it ed S tat es v . T ab b , 1 2 5 F . 3 d 5 8 3 , 5 8 5 -86 (7th C ir . 1997) ) . “The C our t ’ s i nqui r yw hen couns el s ubm i t s an A nder s br i ef i s thus tw ofol d: ( 1) w hethercou nsel adeq uatel yfulfi l l ed [T hir d C i rcui tL ocal A pp el l at e R ule 109.2' s] r equi r ement s ; and ( 2) w hetheran i ndepende ntr evi ew of the r ecor d pr es ent s any n o n frivo lou s issue s. ” U n it ed S tat es v . Y o u la, 2 4 1 F . 3 d 2 9 6 , 3 0 0 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ).3 I. In A u g u st 2 0 0 4 , the U n ited S tate s C u sto m s S e rv ice lea rn e d o f a p lan to sm u g g le appr oxi m at el yt w o ki l ogr ams of her oi n fr om B ogot a, C ol om bi a t o t hi s countr y . A ft er se izin g th e sh ip m e n t, C u sto m s u se d in f o rm a tio n lea rn e d in c o n n e c tio n w ith th e se izu re to s e t u p a c o n tr o lle d d e liv e ry o f s h a m h e ro in to th e in te n d e d re c ip ie n ts in th e U n ite d S ta te s . O n b eh alf o f th e g o v ern m en t, a c o n fid en ti al i n fo rm an t ( “C I”) ca ll ed a N ew Y o rk tele p h o n e n u m b e r re triev e d d u rin g th e se izu re a n d sp o k e w ith c o -c o n sp ira to r E liza b e th O l a ya , e m p l o yi n g a p a s s w o r d a s s o c i a t e d w i t h th e s m u g g l i n g o p e r a t i o n . L a t e rth a td a y, th e C I r e c e iv e d a c a ll f

ro m C u a rt a s a n d th e tw o d is c u s s e d a rr a n g e m e n ts f o r t h e m e e tin g . C u a rta s s p o k e w ith th e C I a n u m b e r o f tim e s in th e f

o llo w in g d a y s a n d a ttem p ted to change t he meet i ng pl ace fr om N ew ark, N ew J er s eyt o Q ueens , N ew Y or k, w hi ch s he s a i d w o u l d b e l e s s “ c o m p l i c a t e d , ” A p p . a t3 0 , a n d “ s a f e r , ” A p p . a t3 3 . U l t i m a t e l y, h o w e v e r, th e ya g re e d to m e e t at a h o tel d in e r n e a r th e N e w a rk A irp o rt. O n t h e a g r e e d - u p o n d a y, l a w e n f o r c e m e n ta g e n t s w i t n e s s e d C u a r t a s a n d O l a ya ent ert he di nerand make cont actw i t h t he C I . T he thr ee then exi t ed the di nerand w al ked to th e irre s p e c tiv e c a rs , w ith O la y a e n te ri n g th e p a s s e n g e r s id e o f a c a r d ri v e n b yC u a rt a s . C uar t as pul l ed up al ongs i de the C I ’ s car , atw hi ch poi ntO l ay a exi t ed the vehi cl e w i t h a bag cont ai ni ng $10, 000 and mett he C I athi s car . A ft erO l ay a exc hanged the moneyfor t he s ham her oi n r etr i eved f r om t he C I ’ s trunk, l aw enfor cementagent s arr es t ed O l ay a and C u a rta s. C u a rta s a n d O laya w e re su b se q u e n tlyd e tain e d a n d q u e stio n e d b yf e d e ra l ag e n ts4

and cha r ged w i t h cons pi r acyt o di s t r i but e her oi n. C uar t as fi l ed pr e- t r i al m ot i ons t o s uppr es s the moni t or ed t ape r ecor di ngs of her t el ephone c onver s at i ons w i t h t he C I and ce r t ai n pos t - arr es ts t at ement s thats he made w hi l e i n t he cus t odyof the D epart m entof H om el and Secur i t y , B ur eau of I m m i gr at i on and C us t om s E nfor cement( “I C E ”) atN ew ark A i rpor tfol l ow i ng herarr es t . T he D i s t r i ct C our thel d a tw o- dayevi dent i aryhear i ng on t he mot i ons t o s uppr es s , and then made ext ens i ve fi ndi ngs of fa cton t he cr edi bi l i t yof the w i t nes s es , i ncl udi ng C uar t as , w ho t es t i fi ed att he hea r i ng and s ubm i t t ed an a ffi davi ti n s uppor tof the mot i on t o s uppr es s her s t at ement s . T he D i s t r i ctC our tfound “thatC uar t as r ece i ved herr i ght s and s i gned the w ai verof r i ght s form i n advanc e of the age nt s ques t i oni ng of her. . . and thatthe t i m i ng and met hod of the del i veryof the r i ght s and obt ai ni ng hers i gnatur e t ook pl ace as descri bed by ” on e of the agen t s. A pp . at63 . T he D i stri ctC ou rtal so refused t o sup press t he r ecor ded conve r s at i ons , fi ndi ng t hatC uar t as ’ ar gum ent s w entt o t he w ei ghtof the e v i d e n c e , r a t h e rt h a n i t s a d m i s s i b i l i ty. D ur i ng j ur ys el ect i on, t he governm entus ed one of i t s per empt orys t r i kes on a pr os pect i ve j ur orof os t ens i bl yH i s pani c or i gi n named Pi a G ar ci a. Shor t l yaft erthe D i s t r i ctC our thad di s m i s s ed G ar ci a, defe ns e couns el r ai s ed “a pot ent i al B at s on chal l enge” t o t he s t r i ke and r eques t ed thatthe governm ents t at e on the r ecor d i t s bas i s for excus i ng her . A pp. at78. T he governm entexpl ai ned thatone of i t s keytr i al w i t nes s es had bee n convi ct ed of s hopl i ft i ng on s ever al occa s i ons and thati tw as conce r ned that5

G ar ci a, w ho m anage d a s t or e and w as m arr i ed t o a s t or e manager , m ayhave be en bi as ed a g a in st th e w itn e ss o n th a t b a sis . T h e D istric t C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t th is w a s “ [ p ]re tty t hi n, ” but“a l egi t i m at e r eas on” nonethel es s , A pp. at79, and def ens e couns el “ac cept [ed] t he [gove r nm ent ’ s ] r epr es ent at i on” thatthe s hopl i ft i ng convi ct i ons w oul d have be en el i ci t ed att r i al , A pp. at80. C uar t as t es t i fi ed i n herow n defe ns e attr i al , deny i ng thats he w as i nvol ved i n t he n a rc o tic s tr a n s a c tio n o r t h a t s h e m a d e a n yin c ri m in a tin g s ta te m e n ts a f te r b e in g a rr e s te d . T h e juryrea ch ed a g u il tyv erd ictan d af firm ati v elyan sw ere d a sp ec ial interrog atory r egar di ng w hethert he governm enthad pr oved thatthe cons pi r acyi nvol ved one ki l ogr am orm or e of he r oi n. A ccor di ng t o t he PSR , C uar t as fac ed a Sent enci ng G ui del i nes r ange of 151- 188 m ont hs i m pr i s onm ent . T he D i s t r i ctC our tdecl i ned t o appl ythe s ugges t ed aggr avat i ng r ol e adj us t m ent , t her ebyr educi ng C uar t as ’ G ui del i nes r ange t o 121- 151 m o n th s, b u t th e C o u rt d e c lin e d to a p p lya m iti g a tin g ro le a d ju stm e n t o r to g ra n t a dow nw ar d departur e bas ed on di m i ni s hed ca paci t y , m ent al and emot i onal condi t i on, or fa m il yti es a n d resp o n sibil it ies. T h e D istri ct C o u rtthen ap p li ed the s en tenc ing p roc ed u re s etfor t h i n U ni t ed St at es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) , and i m pos ed a non- G ui del i nes s ent ence of 120 m ont hs i m pr i s onm ent , the s t atut orym andat orym i ni m um forheroffe ns e. A f ter th e a p p e a l w a s f

iled , C u a rta s w a s a d v ise d o f h e r rig h t to f

ile a p ro se b rie f

in t hi s cour ti n l i ghtof hercouns el ’ s A nder s br i ef. A l t hough s he di d notdo s o, s he fi l ed a l et t erw i t h t he courtr eques t i ng new couns el , s t at i ng thats he has “def i ni t el ybr oken the6

l aw , ” butper s i s t i ng t hats he had notbeen gi ven herM i r anda r i ght s , thats he di d not “s us pectanyt hi ng under - handed w as goi ng on, ” and thathers ent ence w as not“fa i ror appr opr i at e. ” Let t erfr om A dr i ana Cuar t as t o C l erk of the C our t , U ni t ed St at es C our tof A p p e a ls f

o r th e T h ird C irc u it (Ju n e 1 2 , 2 0 0 7 ). W e h a v e re v iew e d th e c o u rt re c o rd to det erm i ne w hethert he appe al i s “w hol l yfr i vol ous , ” s ee Pens on v. O hi o, 488 U . S. 75, 80 (1988 ), and agree w i t h co un sel t hat i ti s. II. C uar t as ’ at t or neyhas ful fi l l ed hi s dutyunderA nder s . H e addr es s ed pot ent i al appea l abl e i s s ues ateac h s t age of t he pr ocee di ngs — pr e- t r i al m ot i ons , tr i al , and s ent enci ng — and found no non- fr i vol ous i s s ues . W e have al s o r evi ew ed ea ch s t age of th e p ro c e e d in g s a n d f

in d n o n o n -f

riv o lo u s is su e s f

o r a p p e a l. A f ter h e a rin g th e tes tim o n yo f C u a rta s, O laya, a n d se v e ra l law e n f o rc e m e n t ag e n ts overt he cour s e of a t w o- dayevi dent i aryhear i ng, the D i s t r i ctC our tfound, as a mat t erof fac t , t hatl aw enfor cementagent s i s s ued pur s uantt o M i r anda v. A r i zona, 384 U . S. 436 ( 1966) , w arni ngs t o C uar t as befor e t aki ng hers t at ementand thatC uar t as w as i ncons i s t ent aboutw hethers he had made admi s s i ons t o t he l aw enfor cementoffi cer s aft erhavi ng been given he r r i gh t s. T he D i stri ctC ou rt ’s factual fi nd i ng s, w hich w ere based on w i t ness c re d ib ili tya n d C u a rta s’ in c o n sis ten t sta tem e n ts, a re re v e rsib le o n lyif th e ya re c lea rly err oneous . U ni t ed St at es v. Pruden, 398 F. 3d 241, 245 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . W e fi nd no nonfr i vol ous ar gum entt hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tcl ear l yerr ed.7

I n t he A nder s br i ef, defe ns e couns el not ed thathe had a s s ert ed a c hal l enge pur s uantt o B at s on v. K entucky , 476 U . S. 79 ( 1986) , dur i ng j urys el ect i on. T he D i s t r i ct C o u rt in q u ire d in to th e g o v e rn m e n t’s re a so n f o r a ss e rtin g its p e re m p to rystrik e w ith res pect t o G arci a and con cl ud ed thatthe reason w as “l egit i m at e. ” A pp . at79 . W e m ust gi ve “gr eatdefe r ence ” t o t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s fi ndi ngs . B at s on, 476 U . S. at98 n. 21. H avi ng r evi ew ed the r ecor d, anyar gum entthatthi s concl us i on w as cl ear l yerr oneous w ou l d b e fri vo l ou s. A nychal l enge t o t he s uffi ci encyof the evi dence w oul d be fr i vol ous i n l i ghtof the ev iden ce intr o d u ce d at tri al. “O u r rev iew o f th e su ff ici en cyo f th e e v iden ce af ter a co n v ict ion is ‘ h igh lyd ef ere n ti al. ’” U n it ed S tat es v . H art, 2 7 3 F . 3 d 3 6 3 , 3 7 1 (3d C ir . 2001) ( quot i ng U ni t ed St at es v. H el bl i ng, 209 F. 3d 226, 238 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ) . T he t es t i m onyi nt r oduced a tt r i al i ncl uded thatof governm entw i t nes s es , l aw enfor cement agen t s, co-con spi rat or O l ay a, C uart as’ po st -arres tst at em ents , and aud i otapes of C uart as’ conver s at i ons w i t h t he C I . I n addi t i on, C uar t as t es t i fi ed i n herow n defe ns e, pr ovi di ng t he j uryan o pp ortun i t yt o assess her ow n credi bil i t yon the is sue of i ntent . U nd er these ci rcum st ances, anychall eng e t o the suffi ci encyof the evidence w ou l d b e fri vo l ou s. Fi nal l y , w e not e thatt he j ur yexpr es s l yfound thatthe cons pi r acyi nvol ved one k il o g ram o r m o re o f h ero in, and thu s C u artas w as su b ject t o a ten -y ea r m an d atory m i nim um sent ence. See 2 1 U . S . C . § 8 41 (b) (1) (A ). B ecause C uart as r ecei ved the low est pos s i bl e s ent ence , no non- fr i vol ous i s s ues coul d be r ai s ed on appe al w i t h r es pectt o her8

s ent ence . III . Be c a u s e we a g r e e t h a tt h e r e a r e n o n o n - f r i v o l o u s i s s u e s f

o rCu a r t a s ’ a p p e a l , we w ill a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

c o n v ictio n a n d se n ten c e . W e w ill g ra n t co u n se l’s m o tio n to w ith d ra w a n d d e n yC u a rta s’ m o tio n to a p p o in t n e w c o u n se l.