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 5-14-2010 

# U SA v . E dward M ontgome ry 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 . 09-3224

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . 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 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 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 2010 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 . E dwar d M ont g ome ry " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1332. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1332NOT 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. 09- 3224

__________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. E DWARD MONT GOMER Y, A p p e llan t.

_______________________ 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 D istric t o f

M id d le P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 1: 08- C R - 00155- 1) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e C hr i s t opherC . C onner

________________________ Subm i t t ed underT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1 ( a)

on M ar ch 25, 2010 B efore: R E N D E L L , F U E N T E S and C H A G A R E S , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: M ay14, 2010)

_____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_____________T he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on under18 U . S. C . § 3231. T hi s C our thas 1 j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291. 2 C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udge. C ouns el forE dw ar d M ont gom eryhas m oved, pur s uantt o A nder s v. C al i forni a, 386 U . S. 738 ( 1967) , forperm i s s i on t o w i t hdr aw as couns el i n t hi s cas e. Fort he r eas ons t hatfol l ow , w e w i l l gr antt he mot i on and af fi r m M ont gom ery ’ s s ent ence . 1 I. B e c a u se w e w rite s o lelyf o r th e b e n e f

it o f th e p a rties , w e w ill o n lyb rie f ly s um m ar i ze the es s ent i al fac t s . O n M ar ch 26, 2009, M ont gom erypl eade d gui l t yt o one c o u n t o f p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to d istrib u te f iv e g ra m s o r m o re o f

c o c a in e b a se , in vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) . O n A pr i l 8, 2009, t he D i s t r i ctC our tconduct ed a pl ea c o llo q u yd u rin g w h ich M o n tg o m e rya c k n o w led g e d th a t th e o f f e n se “ c a rrie s w ith it a s t atut or ym i ni m um t erm of i m pr i s onm entof fi ve y ear s . ” A ppendi x 43. O n J ul y20, 2009, M ont gom eryw as s ent ence d t o, i nt eral i a, fi ve y ear s of i m pr i s onm ent . M ont gom eryfi l ed t i m el ynot i ce of

appea l on J ul y29, 2009. II. M ont gom ery ’ s couns el pet i t i ons t hi s C our tt o w i t hdr aw as at t or neyof r ecor d, ar gui ng t hatt her e ar e no non- fr i vol ous i s s ues t hatcan be advanc ed on appe al . A copyof d e f e n se c o u n se l’s b rie f

w a s f u rn ish e d to M o n tg o m e ry , an d h e w a s g iv e n th irtyd a y s to f ile a br i ef on hi s ow n behal f. M ont gom eryt i m el yfi l ed a pr o s e br i ef a r gui ng t hatt he D i s t r i ct3

C our tcomm i t t ed pl ai n err orbym i s cal cul at i ng hi s cr i m i nal hi s t or ycat egory , t her eby ren d ering h im ineligible f o r “a red u cti o n fro m h is ( 6 0 ) m o n th m an d atorym inim u m term pu r s ua ntt o § 5C1. 2 o f the [Uni t e d St a t e s Se nt e nc i ng G ] ui de l i ne s . ” A pp e l l a nt ’ s Pr o Se B ri e f a t 5 . S ec ti o n 5 C 1 . 2 o f th e S en tenc ing G u idelines li m it s the ap p li ca b il ityo f statuto ry m i ni m um s ent ence s i n cert ai n cas es , as s etfor t h i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( f) . Foroffe ns es u n d er 2 1 U . S . C . § 8 4 1 , the c o u rtm ayim p o se a sen tenc e w ith o u t r eg ard to an ystatu tory m inim u m w h ere , inter ali a, “the d ef en d an t do es n o t hav e m o re tha n 1 crim inal h ist o ry p o in t.” 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (f ); U .S .S .G . § 5 C 1 .2 . A t th e tim e o f

h is o f f e n se , M o n tg o m e ry ’s c rim in a l h isto ryin c lu d e d a c o n v ictio n in s t at e courtfordr i vi ng undert he i nfl uence . T he s t at e courti m pos ed a s ent ence of 48 ho urs t o 1 y ear of i m pri sonm ent for that conv i ct i on . U nd er the S entenci ng G uidel i nes, t hi s convi ct i on y i el ded tw o cr i m i nal hi s t or ypoi nt s beca us e M ont gom ery ’ s pr i ors ent ence of i m pr i s onm entw as “atl eas ts i xt yday s , ” § 4A 1. 1, as m eas ur ed byt he “maxi m um s e n t e n c e i mp o s e d , ” § 4 A1 . 2 ( b ) . T h e Di s t r i c tCo u r tt h e r e f o r e c o r r e c t l ya s s i g n e d t wo cr i m i nal hi s t or ypoi nt s and pr oper l yconcl uded thatt he s t atut or ym i ni m um s ent ence appl i ed. E val uat i on of an A nder s br i ef r equi r es a tw ofol d i nqui r y : ( 1) w hethercouns el has t hor oughl yexami ned the r ecor d forappea l abl e i s s ues and has expl ai ned w hyanys uch i s s ues ar e fr i vol ous , and ( 2) w hetheran i ndepende ntr evi ew of the r ecor d pr es ent s any4

non- fr i vol ous i s s ues . U ni t ed St at es v. Y oul a, 241 F. 3d 296, 300 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . W her e a p ro se b rie f

is f iled , “o u r e x a m in a tio n o f th e re c o rd is in f

o rm e d b yth o se iss u e s ra ise d in A p p e lla n t’ s p ro s e b ri e f.” Id . a t 3 0 1 . M ont gom ery ’ s couns el combed t hr ough t he r ecor d and conc l uded thatt her e ar e no appea l i s s ues as t o: ( 1) j ur i s di ct i on; ( 2) t he pr ocedur al val i di t yorvol unt ar i nes s of the gui l t ypl ea; or( 3) t he l egal i t yorr eas onabl enes s of the s ent ence . L i kew i s e, our i ndepende ntr evi ew of “thos e por t i ons of the r ecor d i dent i fi ed by[the] A nder s br i ef” and M o n tg o m e ry ’s p ro se b rie f re v e a ls n o n o n -f

riv o lo u s is su e M o n tg o m e rym ig h t p ro f itab ly r ai s e on appe al . See i d. T he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on byi m pos i ng t he m andat or ym i ni m um s ent ence under21 U . S. C . § 841( b) . H avi ng cons i der ed the a rg u m e n ts ra ise d in M o n tg o m e ry ’s p ro se b rie f , w e c o n c lu d e th a t co u n se l’s b rie f in th is cas e i s adequa t e. A cc o rdin g ly , w e w il l gran t cou n sel’s m o ti o n to w ith d raw an d af firm M o n tg o m e ry’s s e n te n c e .