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 9-12-2003 

# U SA v . N egron 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 . 01-3789

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 . vi 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 sity 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 sity 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 . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" U SA v . N e gr on " (2003). 2003 D e cisio n s . P ape r 276. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003/276NOT PRE CEDENT IAL IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT

__________________________

No. 01-3789

__________________________ UNITED S TATES OF AMERI CA

v. ROBERT NEGRON, Appellant

___________________________ On A ppeal from the Un ited States District Co urt For the Dist

rict of New Jersey (D.C. No. 01-cr-00278) Distri ct Judge: Honorable Anne E. Thompson

____________________________ Submitte d Under Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

July 3, 2003 Be for e: S CIR ICA , Chief Judge , BA RR Y a nd B EC KE R, Circuit Judges
. (Fil ed: Septe mber 11, 2003)

__________________________ OPINI ON OF THE COURT

__________________________ BECK ER, Circuit

Judge. Ro bert N egro n has appe aled f rom a judg men t in a crim inal ca se pu rsuan t to his bargaine d for pleaof guilt y t o a charge of being a convict ed felon i n possessi on of a firearm. 18 U.S.C. § (g)(1) and (2). Negron’s counsel , Phil ip J. Moran, has fil ed a brie f2

pursuant to And ers v. C aliforn ia , 386 U.S. 738 ( 1967), acc ompanied bya “Motion of Request to be Relieved as Counsel,” and by a c erti fication in s upport of t he motion and of the Anders brief, contai ning 36 paragraphs and concluding that there are no non-frivolous issues for ap peal. T he br ief refers to th ose p ortions of the record that m ight arg uably support an appeal and t o the rel evant l aw. The affidavi t goes into deta il as to every aspect of the cas e, both the guilt and sent encing phase
. As a gene ral rule, th e entry of a guilty plea cons titutes a w aiver o f virtua lly all poss ible claim s for a ppella te relief e xcep t (1) a cla im tha t the co urt lack ed juris diction to accept t he plea; (2) a cl aim that the ple a is i nvalid, accordi ng to appli cable cons tit utional and stat utory standards; and ( 3) a cla im that the sent ence is i llega l. See United Stat es v. Broce , 488 U.S . 563 (19 89) , Tollett v. Henderson , 411 U .S. 258 (197 3). Sin ce a g uilty plea c onstitu tes an a dm ission th at the d efen dant c om mitted the ch arged crime s, any claim that i s inconsi stent

with an admiss ion of guilt genera lly is waived by

the ple a. See Broce , 488 U.S. at 570- 75. The guilty plea col loquy

conducted by

the Dist rict Court was
ex t en sive an d i n c on fo r mi t ywi t h t he r equi sit es of

Ru l e 1 1( c) of

t he Fe d. R. Cr i m. P. We need not desc ribe t

he coll oquy i n detai l. Suffi ce it to say that e ach of the r equirement s of Ru le 11 (c) w ere a mp ly cov ered , inclu din g es tabli shin g th e fa ctua l bas is fo r the plea
. Counsel’s c erti ficat ion, whic h sets f orth hi s independent

investigati on, confi rms the factual basis. H e also confirms his review of the prese ntence rep ort and states that there is no basi s for obj ecti on to the c alcul ation of the base of

fense le vel or appl icat ion of the3

upw ard adju stm ent b eca use the w eap on w as d efa ced . (A seria l nu mb er w as o blite rated .) He also repr esents that he finds no bas is for additi onal downward adjust ments (additional to three levels for ac ceptance of respon sibility). Inter a lia , Mr. Moran’s certificati on states: 31. Finally I have attem pted to sit and loo k at the entirety of Rob ert Negron’s si tuati on and my involvement. Mindfulthat Ineed argue every nonfrivolo us issu e, eve n tho se that a ppea r unsu ppo rted by cu rrent law or reas onab le an alo gy. 32. I have reviewed again Anders requir ements, and have found solace in Justi ce Stewart ’s decent [sic] and note the inhere ntly “quixoti c” nature of the und ertakin g. In truth , in this ca se, I belie ve req uiring a brief to be the l ogicalequival ent of orde ring me to ba lance an egg on its edge. 33. In additio n to an alyzing e ach s egm ent or d iscern able p art of th is process, I have al so att empted to t ake each Consti tuti onal Amendment that migh t offe r som e solac e to a d efen dant, a nd try to fin d an a rgua ble ba sis there f or appeal . I have c onsider ed the Second Amendment, Ihave cons idered the F ourth Am endm ent, I ha ve co nside red the Fifth A men dm ent, I have considered the Sixth Amendm ent and I have considered the broadest impli cati ons of the Fourteenth Amendment but I have found nothing upon wh ich M r. Neg ron’s h at mig ht rest. 34. I h ave e xam ined th e und erlying statu te and com pared its requir ed elements to the f acts offe red at t

he time of t

he plea. I have exam ined the Statute in term s of its constitutional fou ndation. I am aware of the pri or decis ion of thi s Court i n United States v. Si ngletary , 268 F.3d 196 (3d Cir . 200 1). T his is a co ntro lling pre ced ent. N otw ithsta ndi ng t hat, I find an ar guable di scordance wit h my reading of the deci sion i n United Stat es v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (19 95), Unite d States v. Morris on, 52 9 U.S. 598 (2 000 ), andJon es v. Uni te d St at es , 5 29 U. S. 848 (2 000 ). Howev er , my resear ch shows that

although at lea st 9 other Courts of Appeals have consider ed this issue, none has found thi s stat ute unconstitutional. I have neverthe less briefl y, briefe d this issue. 35. I r ecognize t

hat thi s Court wants a

Brief. Heretofore, I beli eved1 While M r. Moran was dilatory in fulfi lling his Anders obl ig at io ns, andit to ok s ome effort by the Co urt to get him to co mplete them , he ultimately did so. M r. Moran ’s dilatoriness does not affect the outcome of the case. We also note our view that, because the is sues pres ented i n the appeallack l egal meri t, t hey do not

requir e the fi ling of a petition for w rit of certiorari with the Su preme C ourt. 3d C ir. LAR 109.2(b)(20 00). 4 that an y good attorne y could s urely alw ays find s om ething to argu e abo ut in every case. Here , however, I am defeate d. Pursuant to these comments , Mr. Moran’s brief see ks to establis h a basis for consti tuti onal chal lenge t o § 922(g). His effort s fail , particularly in li ght of our dec isi on in United States v. Singlet ary , 268 F.3d 190 (3d Cir. 2001 ). In Un ited Sta tes v. Marvin , 211 F .3d 77 8 (3d Cir. 20 00) w e reco nfirm ed the duty of counsel fi ling Anders briefs to attempt to uncover the best arguments for

his or he r clie nt, and to expla in the f aults in possible argument s. We have examined t he scant record in this case, but

find nothing that would require c ounsel t o do more than he has alrea dy. He fairl y r epresent s that the Rule 11 col loquy

passes must er. The se ntence was not fla we d. Th e statute of co nvictio n is co nstitution al. Th e case is essen tially stra ightfor

ward and there do not appear to be any

other i ssues t

hat might

be the subj ect of pos sible app eal. A cco rdin gly, the jud gm ent o f the Dis trict C our t wi ll be a ffir me d. W e deny M r. Negron ’s motion fo r the appoin tment of n ew co unsel. W e grant M r. Moran ’s mot io n t o wi th dr aw. 15 /s/ Edw ard R. B ecker Circuit Judge