2005 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 10-31-2005 

# U SA v . C oncep c ion 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 . 03-2422

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 a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

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 l l a nova 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 2005 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 nova 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 l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" U SA v . C onc epc ion" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 317. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/317NOT 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. 03- 2422

____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. AL E XI S CO NC E P CI ON, 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 E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 02- cr - 00488) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e R onal d L . B uckw al t er

____________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

O ct ober27, 2005 B e f o re : S L O V IT E R , F IS H E R a n d G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJudges .

( Fi l ed: O ct ober31, 2005)

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________ F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudge . I. A p p ell an t A lexis C o n ce p cion ch all en g es th e leg ali tyo f h is sen tenc e u n d er U ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 125 S. C t . 738 ( 2005) . B eca us e ourdeci s i on i n U n itedS ta tes v . D a v is ,W e d e e m it w o rth yo f n o te th a t B ookerw as ar gued on O ct ober4, 2004, and the 1 decis i on w as i ssued on January12 , 20 05 , a full w eek b efore cou nsel subm i t t ed h i s A nd ers b rie f in th is c a se . T h e d e c isio n w a s re p o rte d w id e lyin th e n e w s m e d ia. A lth o u g h it i s pos s i bl e thatt he br i ef ha d been c om pl et ed bef or e J anuary12, w e ar e s t i l l s om ew hat t r oubl ed bycouns el ’ s concl us i on t hata cha l l enge t o t he l egal i t yof the s ent ence w oul d be fr i vol ous beca us e “[ t ] he di s t r i ctcour tl acke d t he author i t yt o i m pos e a l ow ers ent ence ” t h a n t h e ma n d a t e d Gu i d e l i n e s r a n g e . ( Ap p . Br . a t1 3 . ) T o b e s u r e , a s o f J a n u a r y1 8 , we had noty etdeci ded D a v is , and thus had noty etappl i ed B oo ker to p e n d in g a p p e a ls in th is C ir c u it. N o n e th e le s s , o n J a n u a ry 1 8 , B oo ker w as t he l aw , and B l akel y v. W as hi ngt on , 542 U . S. 296 ( 2004) , had bee n t he l aw foral m os ts i x m ont hs , dur i ng w hi ch t i m e s ever al C our t s of A ppeal s had hel d i t s rul i ng t o appl yi n atl eas ts om e r es pect s t o t he Feder al S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s . See , e .g ., U ni t ed Stat es v. A m el i ne , 3 7 6 F . 3 d 9 6 7 (9th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 375 F. 3d 508 ( 7t h C i r . 2004) . W e have hel d t hati n fi l i ng an 2 407 F. 3d 162 ( 3d C i r . 2005) , contr ol s t hi s cas e, w e w i l l vaca t e A ppel l ant ’ s s ent ence and
r emand t o t he D i s t r i ctC our tforr es ent enci ng. II. As we wr i t e o n l yf

o rt h e p a r t i e s , wh o a r e f a mi l i a rwi t h t h e u n d e r l y i n g f a c t s , we s hal l s etoutonl yt hos e fa ct s nece s s aryt o ouranal y s i s . O n J anuary6, 2003, A ppel l ant p led g u iltyto a f

o u r-c o u n t in d ictm e n t ch a rg in g th e f o llo w in g c rim e s: p o ss e ss io n w ith i nt entt o di s t r i but e coc ai ne bas e, pos s es s i on of a f i r earm i n fur t her ance of a drug t r aff i cki ng cr i m e, pos s es s i on of a f i r earm bya convi ct ed fe l on, and pos s es s i on of
amm uni t i on bya convi ct ed fe l on. O n J anuary4, 2005, A ppel l ant ’ s at t or neym oved t o w i t hdr aw fr om t he ca s e, and on J anuary18, 2005, t he att or neyfi l ed an A nd ers b ri e f , se e A n d e rs v . C a lif

o rn ia , 38 6 U. S. 738 ( 1967) , s t at i ng t hatupon r evi ew of the ca s e he c oul d i dent i fyno non- fr i vol ous gr ounds forappea l . O n M ar ch 11, 2005, A ppel l antw as gi ven thi r t yday s t o fi l e an 1A nd ers br i ef, couns el at t es t s t hathe has “thor oughl ys cour ed the r ecor d i n s ear ch of

appea l abl e i s s ues . ” U

n itedS ta tes v . M

a rv in , 211 F. 3d 778, 780 ( 3d C i r . 2000) . W e thi nk i tnotout s i de the r ange of r eas onabl ycompet entr epr es ent at i on forcouns el t o have re c o g n ize d th a t B oo ker m i g h tw e l l c r e a t e n o n - f r i v o l o u s i s s u e s f

o ra p p e a l i n t h i s c a s e . We do notexpec tcl ai r voy ance aboutfutur e cha nges i n t he l aw , m er el yt i m el yr ecogni t i on of t hos e cha nges t hathave oc curr ed bef or e a br i ef i s fi l ed. 3 in f o rm a l pr o s e br i ef, and on M ar ch 24, 2005, A ppel l antfi l ed an i nfor m al br i ef ch all en g ing the leg ali tyo f h is sen tenc e u n d er B ooker . III . I n D a v is , t hi s C our tdeci ded t o r emand forr es ent enci ng al l cas es pendi ng on di r ect
r evi ew w hen B oo ker w as deci ded i n w hi ch the def endantw as s ent ence d undert he
m a n d a to ry G u id e lin e s re g im e . D a v is , 407 F. 3d 162 at165. W e expl ai ned that [b ]ec au se th e se n tenc ing ca lculu s w as g o v ern ed b ya G u idelines fra m ew o rk err oneous l ybel i eved t o be mandat or y , t he out come of eac h s ent enci ng hear i ng conduct ed undert hi s fr amew or k w as nece s s ar i l yaff ect ed. A l t hough p lain e rro r ju risp ru d e n c e g e n e ra llyp lac e s th e b u rd e n o n a n a p p e llan t to d e m o n stra te s p e c if

ic p re ju d ice f lo w in g f ro m th e D istric t C o u rt’s e rro r, in t hi s cont ext– w her e mandat or ys ent enci ng w as governed byan err oneous s cheme – pr ej udi ce c an be pr es um ed. I d. A ppel l antw as s ent ence d undert he mandat or yG ui del i nes r egi m e, and he di d not
w a iv e h is ri g h t to a p p e a l th e le g a lity o f h is s e n te n c e . C

f. U n itedS ta tes v . L o c ke tt , 406 F .3 d 2 0 7 , 2 1 2 -1 4 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (h o ld in g th a t a d e f e n d a n t w h o e x e c u ted a n a p p e llate
w ai veras par tof hi s pl ea a gr eementi s notent i t l ed t o r es ent enci ng i n l i ghtof B ooker ). T he D i stri ctC ou rtadv i sed A pp el l ant of his app el l at e ri gh t s as fol l ow s:4

I al s o r emi nd y ou t hatw hen y ou ent era pl ea of gui l t yl i ke y ou have done her e t oday , t he onl ydi r ectappea l r i ght s y ou have a r e fr om t he val i di t yof t hi s pr ocee di ng t hati s goi ng on r i ghtnow , t hi s ent er i ng of the pl ea, and the l egal i t yof the s ent ence t hatI i m pos e. Pl ea H ear i ng T r . at17, J an. 6, 2003. B eca us e A ppel l ant ’ s appea l i s notbarr ed under L o c ke tt , w e a re b o u n d u n d er D avis to re m a n d f o r re se n ten c in g . A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill
vaca t e A ppel l ant ’ s s ent ence and r emand forr es ent enci ng i n l i ghtof B ooker .