2009 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 1-14-2009 

# U SA v . H e nry R au se 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 . 08-3281

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_2009

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 2009 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 . H e nry R aus e r " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 2031. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/20311

HLD- 2 8 ( De c e mb e r 2 0 0 8 ) 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

___________ N o. 08- 3281

___________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

vs. HEN RY RA USER

____________________________________ 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 . C r i m i nal N o. 06- cr - 00440- 1) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J ames K nol l G ar dner

____________________________________ Subm i t t ed forPoss i bl e Sum m aryA ct i on Pur s uantt o T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6

D ece m ber31, 2008 B efor e: SC I R I C A , C hi ef J udge, W E I S and G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges

(O p inion fil ed Jan u ary1 4 , 2 0 0 9 )

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C U R I A M.

I n O ct ober2007, t he appe l l ant , H enryR aus er , w as tr i ed bef or e a j uryi n t he U n ited S tate s D istric t 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 f

o r p o ss e ss io n w ith inten t t o d istri b u te five g ram s o r m o re o f c o ca ine b ase . S ee 2 1 U . S . C . § 8 4 1 (a)(1),It a p p e a rs th a t R a u s e r h a d a s s is ta n c e f ro m c o u rt -a p p o in te d s ta n d b yc o u n s e l. 1 T he D i s t r i ctC our tcoul d denyR aus er ’ s m ot i on underR ul e 33( b) even though, att he 2 tim e o f th e D istric t C o u rt’s r u lin g , R a u se r h a d a lre a d yin iti a ted h is d ire c t ap p e a l in th is C o u rt . S e e V e n e n v . S w e e t, 7 5 8 F .2 d 1 1 7 , 1 2 3 n .7 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 5 ). 2 ( b) ( 1) ( B ) . D ur i ng t he tr i al , R aus er , w ho had el ect ed t o pr ocee d pr o s e, s oughtt o change 1 h is plea f rom “n o t gu il ty ” to “ n o t gu il tyb yrea so n o f in san ity , ” b u t th e D istri ct C o u rt d en ied h is r eq u est. O n N o v em b er 1 , 2 0 0 7 , at th e c o n clus ion o f th e 1 8 -da ytr ial , the ju ry found R aus ergui l t yon t he s ol e countof the i ndi ctm ent . T he ver di ctw as ent er ed the fol l ow i ng day . T he D i s t r i ctC our ts ubs equent l ys ent ence d R aus ert o a t erm of 162 m ont hs ’ i m pr i s onm ent , fol l ow ed byei ghty ear s of s upervi s ed r el eas e. R aus erfi l ed a ti m elyn o ti ce o f a p p ea l on M arc h 7 , 2 0 0 8 . (C . A . N o . 0 8 -14 7 8 . )

S e v e ra l m o n th s la ter , o n Ju ly7 , 2 0 0 8 , an d w h ile h is a p p e a l w a s p e n d in g in t hi s C our t , R aus erfi l ed a mot i on fora new tr i al i n t he D i s t r i ctC our t . T hi s m ot i on di d not cont ai n anyar gum ent , buti ns t ead mer el yr efe r r ed the D i s t r i ctC our tt o an att ache d new s paperar t i cl e aboutt he Supr eme C our t ’ s r ece ntdeci s i on i n I ndi ana v. E dw ar ds , 128 S. C t . 2379 ( 2008) . I n E dw ar ds , t he C our thel d t hats t at es w er e perm i t t ed t o appoi nt couns el t o r epr es entcr i m i nal defe ndant s w ho s uffe rfr om s ever e ment al i l l nes s even i f the defe ndanti ns i s t s on pr ocee di ng pr o s e. I d. at2388- 89. T hus , i tappea r s thatR aus erw as at t empt i ng t o al l ege thatt he D i s t r i ctC our ts houl d have i ns i s t ed upon appoi nt i ng couns el to a ss ist h im a t trial. T h e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t re a c h th e m e rits o f th is a rg u m e n t, how ever , beca us e i tdet erm i ned thatthe mot i on w as unt i m el y . See F ED . R. C R IM . P. 2T o t he ext entt hatR aus erbel i eves thatthe Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n E dw ar ds 3 s om ehow aff

ect s t he val i di t yof hi s convi ct i on, he mayw i s h t o r ai s e thi s cl ai m i n t he d ir e c t a p p e a l c u rr e n tly p e n d in g in th is C o u rt , (C .A . N o . 0 8 -1 4 7 8 ), o r o n c o lla te ra l r e v ie w . S im ilarly , ins o f

a r a s R a u se r in ten d e d to ra ise a n in e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f

c o u n se l cla im in hi s not i ce of

appea l , he maynotdo s o her e; s uch a c l ai m m aybe r ai s ed i n a mot i on pur s uant28 U . S. C . § 2255. W e make no comm ent , how ever , on t he pot ent i al val i di t yof such clai m s. 3 3 3 (b )( 2 ). T h is a p p e a l f o llo w e d . U pon r evi ew , w e bel i eve thatthe D i s t r i ctC our tcorr ect l yconcl uded that R aus er ’ s m ot i on w as unt i m el y . A m ot i on fora new tr i al bas ed upon new l ydi s cover ed e v id e n c e m a yb e f

ile d u p to th re e y e a rs a f te r t h e v e rd ic t. F ED . R. C R IM . P. 3 3 (b )( 2 ). W hen, how ever , a mot i on fora new tr i al i s bas ed on “a nyot herr eas on, ” i tm us tbe fi l ed wi t h i n s e v e n d a y s o f

t h e v e r d i c t . I d . He r e , Ra u s e r ’ s mo t i o n wa s b a s e d o n th e S u p r e me C o u rt ’s d e c is io n in E d w a rd s , n o t o n “ n e w ly d is c o v e re d e v id e n c e .” F ED . R. C R IM . P. 3 33( b) ( 1) . T her efor e, R aus erhad s even da y s fr om N ovember2, 2007, the dat e the ver di ct w as ent er ed, t o fi l e hi s m ot i on fora new tr i al . See U ni t ed St at es v. C amacho, 370 F. 3d 303, 307- 08 ( 2nd C i r . 2004) . H e di d not , how ever , fi l e the mot i on unt i l s ever al m ont hs la te r, o n J u ly 7 , 2 0 0 8 . A s a re s u lt, th e m o tio n w a s u n tim e ly.

Ac c o r d i n g l y , b e c a u s e th i s a p p e a l d o e s n o tp r e s e n ta s u b s t a n t i a l q u e s t i o n , we w i l l s um m ar i l yaff

i r m t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or derdi s m i s s i ng R aus er ’ s m ot i on fora new tr ia l. S e e T h ir d C ir . L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6 .