2008 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 2-21-2008 

# U SA v . R ich ard Hu ghes 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 . 06-2107

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 ll a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

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 2008 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 . R ich ar d Hu ghe s " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1562. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1562

### NO T P RE CE DENT I AL UN I TE D S TA TE S C OU RT OF AP PE AL S FO R T HE TH IRD C IRCU IT No. 06- 2107 UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA

v. RIC H A RD H U G H E S , Appe l l ant Ap pealfrom

the Unite d S tate s Dis tric t Court f o r th e WesternD istrict o f P enn sylv an ia ( D. C. Cri mi na lNo. 05- c r - 00153) Distri ct Judg e: Ho no ra

ble Arthur J . Schwab Subm itte d U nd er

Th ird C ircuit

LA R 3 4.1(a) J anuary 31, 2008 B ef o re: REN D E L L an dC H A G A RE S , C ircu it Ju d g es, and P OL LA K, *D is tric t Jud ge. ( Fi l e d: Fe br

uary 21, 2008) OPINI ON OF THE COURT

* Honor abl e Loui s H. Pol l ak, Se ni or Judge of the Uni t e d St at e s Di s tri c t Court for th e E asternD istrict o f

P enn sylv an ia, sittin g b y

d esig n atio n .

### 2

REN D E L L , Circ ui t

J udge . R ich a rd H u g h e s w a s c h a rg e d w ith p o ss e ss io n o f a f ire a rm b ya c o n v icte d f

e lo n in vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . §§ 922( g) ( 1) and 924( e) . H e pl ed gui l t yon O ct ober18, 2005, and, on M ar ch 24, 2006, t he D i s t r i ctC our ts ent ence d H ughes t o t he mandat or ym i ni m um s e n t e n c e o f

1 5 y e a r s ’ i n c a r c e r a t i o n p u r s u a n tt o t h e Ar me d Ca r e e rCr i mi n a l Ac t , 1 8 U. S . C. § 924( e) . H ughes t i m el yappea l ed. C ouns el has fi l ed a br i ef pur s uantt o A nders v. C a lif o rn ia , 3 8 6 U .S . 7 3 8 (1 9 6 7 ), re q u e stin g p e rm iss io n to w ith d ra w b e c a u se h e is u n a b le to f in d a n yn o n -f

ri v o lo u s is s u e s f

o r a p p e a l a f

te r a c o n s c ie n tio u s re v ie w o f th e re c o rd . H ughes w as gi ven not i ce of hi s couns el ’ s i nt entt o w i t hdr aw and has notfi l ed a pro se br i ef. W e have j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291 and 18 U . S. C . § 3742( a) . Fort he r eas ons s t at ed bel ow , w e w i l l gr antcouns el ’ s m ot i on t o w i t hdr aw and af fi r m t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s j udgm entof s ent ence . E val uat i on of an A nd ers 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 any n o n f ri v o lo u s is s u e s . U

n itedS ta tes v . Y

o u la , 241 F. 3d 296, 300 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . W her e the A nd ers br i ef a ppear s adequa t e on i t s fac e, ourr evi ew i s l i m i t ed t o t he por t i ons of the r ecor d i dent i fi ed i n t he br i ef, al ong w i t h anyi s s ues r ai s ed byan appe l l anti n a pro se b ri e f. See i d. at301. W e conc l ude thatt he br i ef i n t hi s cas e i s adequa t e, and, i n t he abs ence of a pro se br i ef byt he appe l l ant , i tw i l l gui de ouri ndepende ntr evi ew of the

### 3

r ecor d. Pur s uantt o hi s obl i gat i on undert he fi r s tpr ong of ouranal y s i s , couns el has i dent i fi ed s ever al pot ent i al , butfr i vol ous , i s s ues . B yent er i ng an uncondi t i onal gui l t ypl ea t o t wo Co u n t s , Hu g h e s wa i v e d a l l c l a i ms f o ra p p e l l a t e r e l i e f

wi t h t h e e x c e p t i o n o f

c l a i ms ( 1) t hatt he courtl acke d j ur i s di ct i on t o acc eptt he pl ea, ( 2) t hatt he pl ea i s i nval i d under a p p lic a b le s ta tu to ry a n d c o n s titu tio n a l s ta n d a rd s , a n d (3 ) t h a t th e s e n te n c e is ille g a l. See U ni t ed Stat es v. B r oce , 488 U . S. 563 ( 1989) . N ei t herof the fi r s tt w o cat egor i es of unw ai ved cl ai m s appl i es as t he C our thad j ur i s di ct i on under18 U . S. C . § 3231 and the C h an g e o f P lea h ea ri n g sh o w s tha t th e g u il typ lea w as v ali d , k n o w ing , an d v o lun tary pur s uantt o Fed. R . C r i m . P. 11 and B o y k i n v . A la b a ma , 395 U . S. 238 ( 1969) . C ouns el i dent i fi es t hr ee i s s ues r el at ed t o H ughes ’ s ent ence . Fi r s t , couns el r ai s es t he i s s ue of the appl i cabi l i t yof the A rm ed C ar eerC r i m i nal A ct (A C C A ) t o H u g h es. H u g h es in cu rred m o re tha n the th ree p ri o r co n v ict ion s n ec essa ry f o r th e A C C A to a p p ly . H u g h e s’ c rim in a l re c o rd in c lu d e s a p lea o f g u iltyto b u rg lar yin 1989 and a pl ea of

gui l t yt o 17 count s of bur gl aryi n 1991. PSR ¶¶38, 44 & 45. A l t hough 17 of the pr i orconvi ct i ons r es ul tfr om a s i ngl e j udi ci al pr ocee di ng, t heyar i s e fr om sep ara te crim inal ep isod es o n 1 6 d iffe ren t dates a n d in 1 2 sep ara te l o ca ti o n s an d thu s are tr e a te d a s m u ltip le c o n v ic tio n s . See U ni t ed Stat es v. R andol

ph , 364 F. 3d 118, 123- 24 ( 3d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). C o u n se l als o n o tes th a t H u g h e s re c e iv e d m o re th a n c o n stitu tio n a llya d e q u a te n o tic e o f th e g o v e rn m e n t’ s in te n tio n to s e e k th e e n h a n c e d s e n te n c e u n d e r t h e A C C A . See

### 4

U ni t ed Stat es v. M

ack , 229 F. 3d 226, 231- 32 ( 3d C i r . 2000) . I n par t i cul ar , t he I ndi ctm ent c h a rg e d H u g h e s w ith v io la tin g 1 8 U .S .C . § § 9 2 2 (g )( 1 ) a n d 9 2 4 (e ). S ec o n d , co u n sel reco g n izes tha t th e g o v ern m en t m et i ts bu rde n o f p roo f to su p p o rt t he mandat or ym i ni m um s ent ence undert he A C C A s uch thatanyar gum entbas ed on the bur den of pr oof w oul d be fr i vol ous . A ts ent enci ng, bot h H ughes and hi s t r i al couns el a d m itt e d th a t th e se v e n tee n p rio r b u rg lar ies in c lu d e d a ll o f th e e lem e n ts o f

g e n e ric b u r g l a r ya n d t h e r e f

o r e q u a l i f

i e d a s p r e d i c a t e o f

f e n s e s f o rt h e p u rp o s e s o f

t h e AC CA . See U n itedS ta tes v . B e n n e tt , 1 0 0 F . 3 d 1 1 0 5 , 1 1 0 7 -10 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). L as t , a r evi ew of the s ent enci ng t r ans cr i ptr evea l s t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tcompl i ed w i t h al l of the r equi r ement s of Fed. R . C r i m . P. 32 t hatw er e appl i cabl e i n H ughes ’ cas e. O uri ndepende ntr evi ew of the r ecor d y i el ds no ot hernon- fr i vol ous ar gum ent s t hat coul d pos s i bl ys uppor tan appe al and w e ar e s at i s fi ed thatal l t he r equi r ement s of A nd ers h av e b ee n m et. A cc o rdin g ly , w e w il l A F F IR M the ju d g m en t of the D istri ct C o u rt a n d , i n a s e p a r a t e o r d e r , GR ANT c o u n s e l ’ s mo t i o n t o wi t h d r a w.