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 9-17-2008 

# U SA v . M o s s 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 . 07-1686

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_2008

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 2008 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 . M os s " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 529. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/5291

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 C as e N o: 07- 1686 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. D Y S H A U N M O S S , a / k / a S h a r k e y, 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 D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey D i s t r i ctC our tN o. 05- C R - 557 D istri ct Ju d g e: T h e H o n o rab le G arrettE . B row n , Jr. Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

Sept ember12, 2008 B e f o re : M c K E E , S M IT H a n d W E IS , C i r cui tJudges ( Fi l ed: Sept ember17, 2008) OP I NI ON S M IT H , C i r cui tJudge . D y sh a u n M o ss , p u rsu a n t to a p lea a g re e m e n t co n tain in g a w a iv e r o f h is rig h t to f ile a d ire c t ap p e a l, ple a d e d g u iltyto k n o w in g lya n d in ten tio n a llyc o n sp irin g to d istrib u te a n d t o p o s s e s s wi t h t h e i n t e n tt o d i s tr i b u t e 1 0 0 g r a ms o f h e r o i n i n v i o l a t i o n o f

2 1 U. S . C.The District Court exercise d jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231. W e have 1 appellatejurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). United States v. Cooper , 437 F.3d 324, 327 ( 3d Cir. 2006). 2 §§ 841( a) ( 1) and 841( b) ( 1) ( B ) . T he pr es ent ence r epor tcal cul at ed M os s ’ s offe ns e l evel as 31 and hi s cr i m i nal hi s t or ycat egoryas V I , y i el di ng a s ent enci ng gui del i nes r ange of 188 t o 235 m ont hs . A ts ent enci ng, t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tforthe D i s t r i ctof N ew Jer seyno t ed thatseveral fact ors m i l i t at ed in favo r of “a ser i ou s sent ence.” N on et heles s, b e c a u se M o ss h a d a c c e p ted re sp o n sib ili tyf o r h is c o n d u c t, co o p e ra ted d u rin g h is p rese n tenc e re p o rt , an d w as c an d id w ith the c o u rt , the D istri ct C o u rtg ran ted a d o w n w ard var i ance of one of

fens e l evel . T hi s var i ance r es ul t ed i n a new s ent enci ng gui del i nes ra n g e o f 1 6 8 to 2 1 0 m o n th s . T h e C o u rt s e n te n c e d M o s s to 1 6 8 m o n th s . M os s , pr ocee di ng pr o s e, fi l ed a t i m el ynot i ce of appea l . D efe ns e couns el

1 c o n c lu d e d th a t th e re w e re n o n o n -f riv o lo u s is su e s to a p p e a l an d f iled a m o tio n to w i t hdr aw pur s uantt o A n d e rs v . C a lif o rn ia , 386 U . S. 738 ( 1967) . I n A nd ers , th e S u p r e me C ou rtheld that the “co nst i tuti on al requi rem ent of subst anti al equ al i t yand fai r pr ocess” n e c e s s ita te s th a t a p p e lla n t’ s c o u n s e l v ig o ro u s ly ac t a s a n a d v o c a te f o r t h e d e f

e n d a n t. I

d. at744. 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 in s ear ch of a ppeal abl e i s s ues , ” and i tm us t“expl ai n w hythe i s s ues ar e fr i vol ous . ” 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 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 )). D efe ns e couns el has s etfor t h, w i t h ci t at i ons t o t he r ecor d, the fa ct s and pr ocedur alhi s t or yof the ca s e. C ouns el expl ai ned thathe cons i der ed w hetherM os s coul d chal l enge

t he r eas onabl enes s of the s ent ence i m pos ed, butconcl uded thatanyar gum enti n t hat r egar d w as fr i vol ous i n l i ghtof the dow nw ar d var i ance w hi ch w as gr ant ed and the bel ow g u id e lin e se n ten c e th a t w a s im p o se d . W e a g re e w ith c o u n se l th a t itw o u ld b e f riv o lo u s to chal l enge the r eas onabl enes s of the 168 mont h s ent ence , part i cul ar l yi n l i ghtof the a p p e lla te w a iv e r c o n ta in e d in th e p le a a g re e m e n t. W e c o n c lu d e th a t d e f

e n se c o u n se l h a s f

u lf ill e d h is o b lig a tio n o f

th o ro u g h ly exami ni ng t he r ecor d i n s ear ch of a ppeal abl e i s s ues and expl ai ned w hyanys uch i s s ue l acks m eri t . B ecause o ur ow n indepe nd ent r eview fai l s t o reveal anyno nfri vo l ou s i ssues, w e w i l l aff

i r m t he j udgm entof the D i s t r i ctC our t . W e furt hercert i fythatthe i s s ues pr es ent ed i n t hi s appea l l ack l egal m er i tand thus do notr equi r e the fi l i ng of a pe t i t i on for w ri t o f c e rt io ra ri w ith th e S u p re m e C o u rt . 3 d C ir . L .A .R 1 0 9 .2 (b ).