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 3-11-2005 

# U SA v . Mit chell 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 . 03-3862

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_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 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 2005 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 . Mit che ll " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1455. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/1455T he H onor abl e J an E. D uB oi s , Seni orD i s t r i ctJ udge forthe East ern D i s t r i ctof * Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL

I N TH E 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 C as e N o: 03- 3862 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. RI CH AR D M I TCH ELL, A ppel l ant

__________________________ O n ap p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey D i s t r i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e M aryL . C ooper D i s t r i ctC our tN o. 01- cr - 430

__________________________ S u b m itte d P u rs u a n t to T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 3 4 .1

J une 16, 2004 B e f o re : A L IT O a n d S M IT H , C i r cui tJudges , a n d D U B O IS , D is tr i ct

Judge * (F il ed : M arc h 1 1 , 2 0 0 5 )

_________________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_________________ S M I T H, C i r cui tJudge . O n Ja n u a ry1 6 , 2 0 0 3 , R ich a rd M itch e ll p lea d e d g u iltyto c o n sp ira c yto d istrib u te2

h ero in in v iolati o n o f 2 1 U . S . C . § 8 4 6 . A t sen tenc ing o n S ep tem b er 9 , the D istri ct C o u rt det erm i ned thatM i t chel l w as a ca r eeroffe nderunderU ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i ne (“ U .S .S .G .”) § 4 B 1 .1 , res u lti n g in a n e n h a n c e m e n t o f h is o f f e n se lev e l to 3 2 a n d h is cr i m i nal hi s t or ycat egoryt o V I . T he D i s t r i ctJ udge ac cor ded a thr ee l evel decr eas e for M i t chel l ’ s acc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i t y , y i el di ng a gui del i ne r ange of 151 t o 188 m ont hs o f im p ri so n m en t. T h e C o u rtd en ied M it ch ell ’s req u est u n d er U . S . S . G . § 4 A 1 . 3 fo r a d o w n w a rd d e p a rtu re o n th e b a sis th a t h is c rim in a l h isto ryo v e rsta ted th e se rio u sn e ss o f h is pr i orcr i m i nal act i vi t i es . M i t chel l w as s ent ence d t o 151 m ont hs i m pr i s onm ent , the l ow end of hi s gui del i ne r ange, fol l ow ed bya thr ee y eart erm of s upervi s ed r el eas e. A ft er fi l i ng a t i m el ynot i ce of appea l , M i t chel l ’ s couns el m oved t o w i t hdr aw pur s uantt o A nd ers v . C a lif o rn ia , 3 8 6 U . S . 7 3 8 (19 6 7 ). M it ch ell fil ed an inf o rm al brief

p u rsua n t t o T h ir d C ir cu itL o ca l A p p ell ate R u le 10 9 . 2 (a). I n A nd ers , t he Supr eme C our thel d t hatthe “c ons t i tut i onal r equi r ementof s ubs t ant i al equal i t yand fa i rpr oces s ” nec es s i t at es thatappel l ant ’ s couns el vi gor ous l yact as an ad vo cat e for t he d efen dan t . 38 6 U . S . at74 4. T hu s, cou nsel ’s ro le a s a d v o c a te r e q u ire s th a t h e su p p o rt h is c lien t’s a p p e a l to th e b e st o f h is ab il ity . O f c o u rse, i f c o u n sel find s h is case to b e w h o ll yfrivo lou s, af ter a con sci enti ou s exam i nati on of it , he sho uld so adv i se the co urtand request p e r m i s s i o n t o w i t h d r a w . T h a tr e q u e s t , m u s t , h o w e v e r , b e a c c o m p a n i e d b y a br i ef r efe r r i ng t o anyt hi ng i n the r ecor d t hatm i ghtar guabl ys uppor tthe a p p e a l. I d. I n U n itedS ta tes v . Y

o u la , 241 F. 3d 296, 300 ( 3d C i r . 2001) , w e r ei t er at ed thatan A nd ers b rie f

m u st d e m o n stra te th a t co u n se l h a s “ th o ro u g h lye x a m in e d th e re c o rd inW e e x e rc is e a p p e lla te ju ri s d ic tio n p u rs u a n t to 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 4 2 (a ). 1 3 sear ch o f app eal able i ssues, ” and i tm ust“exp l ai n w hythe is sues ar e fri vo l ou s. ” T hu s, ouri nqui r yi s t w ofol d: ( 1) w hethercouns el adequa t el yful fi l l ed the r equi r ement s of A nd ers ; and ( 2) “w hetheran i ndepende ntr evi ew of the r ecor d pr es ent s anynon- fr i vol ous i s s ues . ” I

d. ( ci t i ng U

n itedS ta tes v . M

a rv in , 2 1 1 F .3 d 7 7 8 , 7 8 0 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 0 )); see al so A nd ers , 386 U . S. at744 ( expl ai ni ng thatthe courtm us tpr ocee d “af t era ful l exami nat i on o f a ll th e p ro c e e d in g s, to d e c id e w h e th e r th e c a se is w h o llyf riv o lo u s” ). If

re v iew f a ils to r evea l anynon- fr i vol ous i s s ues , t he court“maygr antcouns el ’ s r eques tt o w i t hdr aw and di s m i s s t he appe al . ” A nd ers , 3 8 6 U .S . a t 7 4 4 . A ft er consi deri ng cou nsel ’s A nd ers b rie f , w e a re sa tisf

ied th a t co u n se l th o ro u g h ly exami ned the r ecor d fori s s ues of ar guabl e mer i tand ful fi l l ed the r equi r ement s of A nd ers . G i ven M i t chel l ’ s gui l t ypl ea, he i s l i m i t ed t o a fe w s el ecti s s ues upon w hi ch he m aybas e hi s chal l enge on a ppeal : t he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s j ur i s di ct i on, the val i di t yof the g u ilty p le a , a n d th e le g a lity o f th e s e n te n c e . See U

ni t ed Stat es v. B r oce , 488 U . S. 563, 5 7 4 -76 (19 8 9 ); 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 7 4 2 (a). T h ere is no b asis fo r disp u ti n g the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r t h is f

e d e ra l c ri m in a l o f

f e n s e . See 18 U . S. C . § 3231. 1 C o u n se l as se rte d th a t th e re w e re n o d e f icie n c ies w ith re g a rd to M itch e ll’s g u ilty pl ea. T o demonstr at e thatM i t chel l ’ s pl ea w as vol unt aryand i nt el l i gent , couns el r eci t ed t he hi s t or yof the negot i at i ons r es ul t i ng i n t he pl ea a gr eementforthi s drug cons pi r acy o f f e n se . In a d d iti o n , co u n se l ap p e n d e d th e p lea a g re e m e n t an d th e tra n sc rip t o f th e g u iltyp lea c o llo q u y . A lth o u g h M itch e ll’s in f o rm a l p ro se b rie f

c h a llen g e s th e in teg rityo f h is gui l t ypl ea, ourr evi ew of the appe nded pl ea a gr eementand col l oquyver i fi es that M i t chel l ’ s pl ea c om pl i ed w i t h bot h t he r equi r ement s of Feder al R ul e of Cri m i nal Pr ocedur e 11 and B o

y k i n v . A l a b a ma , 3 9 5 U .S . 2 3 8 (1 9 6 9 ). M i t chel l chal l enges hi s s ent ence on t he bas i s of U ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 54 3 U. S.

__, 125 S. C t . 738 ( 2005) . H avi ng det erm i ned thatthe s ent enci ng i s s ues appel l antr ai s es ar e bes tdet erm i ned byt he D i s t r i ctC our ti n t he fi r s ti ns t ance , w e w i l l vaca t e the s ent ence and r emand forr e- s ent enci ng i n acc or dance w i t h B ooker . An a p p r o p r i a t e o r d e rwi l l f o l l o w.