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 3-8-2010 

# U SA v . B onth an E irng 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 . 05-4595

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_2010

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 2010 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 . Bonth an E irn g " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1777. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1777H onor abl e A . W al l a c e Tas hi m a, Seni orJ udge of the U ni t ed * St at es C our tof A ppeal s forthe N inth C i r cui t , s i t t i ng by des i gnat i on. NO T PRECEDEN TI AL U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 05- 4595

UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. BO NT HAN E I RN G, A ppel l ant O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fort he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a ( D . C . N o. 2- 05- cr - 00069- 001 ) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Eduar do C . R obr eno

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

February10, 2010 B efore: S L O V ITE R , R O T H , and T A S H IM A , C i rcui tJudg es * ( Fi l ed: M ar ch 8, 2010)

OP I NI ONTh e Di s t r i c t Co u r th a d j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 1 8 U. S . C. 1 § 3231. W e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew t hi s m at t erpur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. 2 S L O V IT E R , C i r cui tJudge . A p p e llan t B o n th a n E irn g p led g u iltyto o n e c o u n t o f p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to di s t r i but e more t han fi ftygr ams of coc ai ne bas e ( “cr ack c ocai ne”) , i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . §§ 841( a) ( 1) and ( b) ( 1) ( A ) . H e w as s ent ence d t o 240 m ont hs i m pr i s onm entbyt he D i s t r i c tC o u r t . H i s c o u n s e l f i l e d a m o t i o n t o w i t h d r a w a s c o u n s e l a c c o m p a n i e d b y a 1 br i ef i n s uppor tof thatm ot i on pur s uantt o A n d e rs v . C a lif o rn ia , 3 8 6 U . S . 7 3 8 (19 6 7 ). U n d er A nd ers , i f, aft err evi ew of the di s t r i ctcour tr ecor d and a c ons ci ent i ous in v e stig a tio n , co u n se l is c o n v in c e d th a t th e a p p e a l p re se n ts n o iss u e o f a rg u a b le m e rit, couns el m aypr oper l yas k t o w i t hdr aw w hi l e fi l i ng a br i ef r efe r r i ng t o anyt hi ng i n t he re c o rd th a t m ig h t a rg u a b ly su p p o rt th e a p p e a l. I d. a t 7 4 1 -4 2 , 7 4 4 . A nd ers r equi r es that ap p ell an t’ s co u n sel m u st “sati sfythe c o u rtthat h e o r she h as th o rou g h lysco u red the re co rd i n s ear ch of a ppeal abl e i s s ues ” and then “e xpl ai n w hythe i s s ues ar e fr i vol ous . ” U ni t ed S ta tes v . M

a rv in , 211 F. 3d 778, 780 ( 3d C i r . 2000) . “The C our t ’ s i nqui r yw hen couns el s ubm i t s an A nd ers b rie f is th u s tw o f

o ld [ to d e ter m in e ]: (1 ) w h e th e r c o u n se l ad e q u a tely ful fi l l ed [Thi r d C i r cui tL ocal A ppel l at e R ul e 109. 2( a) ’ s ] r equi r ement s [, ] and ( 2) w hether an i ndepende ntr evi ew of the r ecor d pr es ent s anynonfr i vol ous i s s ues . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Y o u la , 2 4 1 F . 3 d 2 9 6 , 3 0 0 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ).3 I. I n O ct ober2004, Phi l adel phi a pol i ce e xecut ed a s ear ch w arr antat194 W . C hew A venue. D ur i ng t he s ear ch, offi cer s obs erved Ei r ng thr ow i ng l ar ge chunks of w hatthey la te r d e te rm in e d w a s c ra c k c o c a in e f ro m a n o p e n w in d o w in h is s e c o n d f lo o r b e d ro o m . O ffi cer s i m m edi at el yappr ehende d E i r ng and r ecove r ed fr om hi s bedr oom l ar ge quant i t i es of bul k coca i ne bas e, num er ous packe t s of cr ack c ocai ne, about$4, 646 i n cas h, and s ever al i t ems of drug par aphernal i a. O ffi cer s di s cover ed a t ot al 232 gr ams of cr ack coca i ne i n E i r ng’ s hom e. E irn g w as th ere af

ter ch arg ed in an ind ict m en t w ith o n e c o u n t of p o sses sion o f m o re th a n f if ty g ra m s o f

c ra c k c o c a in e w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te , in v io la tio n o f 2 1 U .S .C . § 841( a) ( 1) and ( b) ( 1) ( A ) . T he governm ents ubs equent l yfi l ed an i nform at i on under21 U . S. C . § 851 s et t i ng for t h E i r ng’ s pr i orconvi ct i on of a f el onydrug offe ns e. A s a r es ul tof the p ri o r co n v ict ion , E irn g ’s m an d atorym inim u m sen tenc e w as in cre ase d fro m ten y ea rs to tw e n ty y e a rs im p ri s o n m e n t. See 2 1 U . S . C . § 8 4 1 (b)(1 )(A ). T he part i es ent er ed i nt o a gui l t ypl ea a gr eementi n w hi ch Ei r ng admi t t ed thathe pos s es s ed 232 gr ams of cr ack c ocai ne w i t h t he i nt entt o di s t r i but e. A tthe s ent enci ng hear i ng, t he D i s t r i ctC our tadopt ed the fi ndi ngs of the PSR thatE i r ng’ s offe ns e l evel w as 3 1 an d that h e w as in a c ri m inal h ist o ryca tego ryo f II. T h is w o u ld p rod u ce an ad v isory se n ten c in g ra n g e o f

1 2 1 -1 5 1 m o n th s. H o w e v e r, as th e D istric t C o u rt p o in ted o u t, th is ra n g e w a s s u b s u m e d b yth e “ s ta tu to ry, m a n d a to ry m in im u m o f 2 0 y e a rs .” J .T . A p p . a t 2 4 .4

O n thatbasi s, t he D i stri ctC ou rtsent enced E i rng t o 2 40 m on t hs. E i rng app eal s. II. I n M ar ch 2009, E i r ng’ s couns el fi l ed an A nd ers br i ef a s s ert i ng thatno m er i t or i ous i s s ues exi s t ed on appe al , and the G overnm entfi l ed a br i ef i n agr eement . T her eaf t er , E i r ng fi l ed a p ro se br i ef, argui ng t hat “the D i stri ctC ou rt[e]rred w hen [i t ] fai l ed to r edu ce [h i s] s ent ence pur s uantt o the Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on’ s A m endment( 706) t o t he C r ack C ocai ne G ui del i nes . ” A ppel l ant ’ s I nform al B r . at7. E i r ng’ s r efe r ence t o A m endment706 of the S entenci ng G uidel i nes, byw hich the S entenci ng C om m i ssi on reduced the o ffen se l evel s form anycr ack c ocai ne off ens es , does nots etfor t h a non- fr i vol ous i s s ue forr evi ew f o r t w o re a s o n s . Fi r s t , w hethera r etr oact i ve gui del i ne amendm enti s appl i cabl e t o a part i cul ar s ent ence cannotbe r ai s ed i n a di r ectappea l , butr atheronl yi n a pr ocee di ng under18 U . S. C . § 3582( c) ( 2) . Second, i nas m uch as E i r ng w as s ent ence d t o a mandat orym i ni m um t erm of i m pr i s onm entbas ed on a pr i ordrug fel ony , hi s s ent ence i s unaff ect ed byany g u id e lin e a m e n d m e n t. See U ni t ed Stat es v. D oe , 564 F. 3d 305, 309 ( 3d C i r . 2009) (ho lding a statuto rym inim u m sen tenc e u n af fe cted b yA m en d m en t 70 6 ). III . F o r th e re a so n s a b o v e , w e w ill a f f irm th e se n ten c e a n d g ra n t co u n se l’s m o tio n to wi t h d r a w.