2007 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 6-25-2007 

# U SA v . W alk e r 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 . 05-4746

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_2007

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 2007 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 . W al ke r " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 891. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/891T he H onor abl e A . W al l ace T as hi m a, Seni orC i r cui tJ udge, U ni t ed St at es C our tof * A p p e a ls f

o r t h e N in th C ir c u it, s ittin g b yd e s ig n a tio n . 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 

### No. 05- 4746 UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA

v. JAMES ENOS WALKER, Appe l l ant APP EAL F ROM THE UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT C OURT F O R T H E E A S T E R N D IS T R IC T O F P E N N S Y L V A N IA

D . C . C r i m . N o. 01- cr - 00397 D i s t r i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e Law r ence F. St engel Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay24, 2007 B efor e: B A R R Y , C H A G A R E S, and TA SH I M A , C i r cui tJ udges * ( Fi l ed: J une 25, 2007 ) OP I NI ONA l t hough couns el s erved W al kerw i t h copi es of the B r i ef f orA ppel l ant , the 1 app end i x, and cou nsel ’s m oti on t o w i t hd raw , and W al ker w as gi ven t i m e t o fil e a pro se b rie f , W a lk e r d id n o t su b m it an yb rie f to th e C o u rt o r f

ile a n yo p p o sitio n to th e m o tio n to w ith d raw . T h e U n it ed S tat es su b m itted a b ri ef ind icati n g it s ag ree m en t w ith co u n sel’s a s s e s s m e n t o f

th e c a s e a s la c k in g a n yn o n -f ri v o lo u s is s u e s to a p p e a l. 2 T A SH I M A , C i r cui tJ udge Jam es E no s W al ker t i m el yapp eal ed from an o rderrevoking h i s supervi sed rel ease and s ent enci ng hi m t o a t erm of i m pr i s onm entof s i x m onths , tw o y ear s of s upervi s ed r el eas e, and r es t i tut i on. W al ker ’ s couns el now m oves t o w i t hdr aw and has fi l ed a br i ef pur s uantt o A nder s v. C al i forni a, 386 U . S. 738 ( 1967) , i n w hi ch he r epr es ent s thathe has c o n s c ie n tio u s ly ex a m in e d th e re c o rd a n d h a s f o u n d n o n o n -f

ri v o lo u s is s u e s to a p p e a l. C ouns el des cr i bes w hati n t he r ecor d m i ghtar guabl ys uppor tthe appe al , and expl ai ns w hy t he i s s ues ar e fr i vol ous . Pens on v. O hi o, 488 U . S. 75, 80 ( 1988) ; U ni t ed St at es v. Y oul a, 241 F. 3d 296, 299- 300 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291 and 18 U . S. C . § 3742. 1 T h e ins tant v iolati o n p roc ee d ing w as c o m m en ce d w ith a p eti ti o n fil ed b yW alke r’s pr obat i on offi ceron Sept ember1, 2005, al l egi ng thatW al kerhad vi ol at ed the condi t i ons of hi s s upervi s ed r el eas e by : ( 1) t es t i ng pos i t i ve forthe us e of c ocai ne and a dm i t t i ng t he u se o f c o c a in e ; (2 ) f

a ili n g to re p o rt to h is p ro b a tio n o f f ice r; a n d (3 ) f

a ili n g to p a rticip a te i n outpat i entdrug t r eatm ent . T he D i s t r i ctC our thel d a hea r i ng on t hes e al l egat i ons on O ct ober19, 2005, and W al kerdi d notcont es tthem. I ns t ead, W al kert ook t he s t and and admi t t ed the vi ol at i ons ( exce ptt hathe di d notr eca l l w hetherornothe t ol d hi s pr obat i onT h e iss u e s p re se n ted in th e a p p e a l d o n o t re q u ire c o u n se l to f ile a p e tit io n f

o r w rit 2 o f c e rt io ra ri in th e S u p re m e C o u rt . S e e 3 d C ir . L A R M is c . 1 0 9 .2 (b ). 3 o f f ice r th a t h e h a d u se d c o c a in e ), sim p lyo f f e rin g re a so n s w h yh e h a d f a iled to re p o rt to h is p ro b a tio n o f

f ice r a n d to p a rticip a te in d ru g tre a tm e n t, as c h a rg e d . F in d in g W a lk e r in v io latio n o f

h is s u p e rv ise d re lea se f o r u sin g c o c a in e , fa ili n g to re p o rt, an d f a ili n g to compl et e outpat i entdrug t r eatm ent , the D i s t r i ctC our tr evoked hi s s upervi s ed r el eas e and im p o sed the s en tenc e re co u n ted a b o v e. In h is brief, co u n sel d iscu sses the D istri ct C o u rt ’s authori t ypu rs uan tt o 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 58 3(e) t o revok e W al ker’ s t erm of sup ervi sed rel ease upon fi ndi ng bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence thatW al kervi ol at ed a c ondi t i on ther eof; t he pr ocedur al pr ot ect i ons W al kerw as aff or ded underFed. R . C r i m . P. 32. 1; the s at i s fac t i on of due pr oces s r equi r ement s ; the s uffi ci encyof the evi dence ; and the p ro p ri e ty o f

th e s e n te n c e im p o s e d . H a v in g re v iew e d th e re c o rd , w e a g re e th a t W a lk e r h a s n o n o n -f riv o lo u s is su e s to a p p e a l, a n d c o n c lu d e th a t c o u n s e l h a s s a tis f ie d h is o b lig a tio n s u n d e r A n d e rs . A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l gr antcouns el ’ s m ot i on t o w i t hdr aw and af fi r m the j udgm entof the D istric t C o u rt. 2