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 10-22-2009 

# U SA v . Angel S ant o 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 . 08-1825

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 . An g e l S ant os " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 398. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/398NOT 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- 1825 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. A N G EL SA N TO S, A ppel l ant APP EAL F ROM THE UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT C OURT F O R T H E E A S T E R N D IS T R IC T O F P E N N S Y L V A N IA

( D . C . C r i m . N o. 07- cr - 00602- 001) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Petr es e B . T ucker A r gued: Sept ember21, 2009 B efor e: B A R R Y , FI SH E R and J O R D A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: O ct ober22, 2009)

L ynanne B. W es cot t , E s q. ( A r gued) T h e W esc o ttL aw F irm 239 Sout h C amac St r eet Phi l adel phi a, PA 19107- 0000 C ouns el forA ppel l ant2

R ober tA . Z auzmer , E s q. ( A r gued) T ho m as M . Z al eski , E sq O ffi ce of U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney 615 C hes t nutSt r eet Sui t e 1250 Phi l adel phi a, PA 19106- 0000 C ouns el forA ppel l ee OP I NI ON

B A R R Y , C i r cui tJ udge A ngel Sant os ( “Sant os ”) w as convi ct ed on tw o count s of her oi n di s t r i but i on and on e cou nt of po sses si on w i th int ent t o d i stri bu t e heroi n, and sent enced t o 2 40 m on t hs’ im p riso n m e n t. H e a p p e a ls h is c o n v ictio n a n d se n ten c e o n a v a rie tyo f g ro u n d s. W e w ill a f f ir m . I. B eca us e w e w r i t e s ol el yforthe part i es , w e pr es um e fa m i l i ar i t yw i t h t he fa ct s and w ill r e c ite o n ly th e b a s ic u n d e rp in n in g s o f th is c a s e . O n t hr ee oc cas i ons i n O ct oberand N ovember2006, Sant os s ol d her oi n t o an u n d e r c o v e rp o l i c e o f

f i c e r– f i r s t , 9 6 mi l l i g r a ms , th e n 1 8 g r a ms , a n d f i n a l l y4 0 g r a ms . On t he thi r d occa s i on, he w as arr es t ed. O n t he dayof the arr es t , the pol i ce obt ai ned a s ear ch w a rr a n t f o r h is re s id e n c e a n d f

o u n d 6 7 a d d itio n a l g ra m s o f h e ro in . Fr om t he out s etof the fe der al pr ocee di ngs agai ns thi m , Sant os r ai s ed a s er i es ofS antos al so rai ses the fo l l ow i ng argum ents , w hich w e hav e revi ew ed an d d i sm i ss 1 su m m a rilya s d e v o id o f m e rit: (1 ) th e D istric t C o u rt m a d e a n im p ro p e r d ru g q u a n tity cal cul at i on ats ent enci ng; ( 2) t he C our terr oneous l yconcl uded thathe w as a ca r eer o f f e n d e r; a n d (3 ) t h e C o u rt w ro n g ly d e n ie d h is m o tio n to s u p p re s s . 3 m er i t l es s chal l enges t o t he j ur i s di ct i on of the fe der al cour t . H e al s o had bee n as s i gned a s er i es of att or ney s , and then dec i ded thathe w oul d l i ke t o w ai ve couns el and r epr es ent hi m s el f, al bei tw i t h s t and- bycouns el i n t he w i ngs . A ccor di ngl y , the U ni t ed St at es M a g istra te J u d g e b e f

o re w h o m S a n to s w a s a p p e a rin g a t th e tim e c o n d u c ted a F a re tta c o llo q u yto e n s u re th a t h is w a iv e r o f c o u n s e l w a s k n o w in g , v o lu n ta ry, a n d in te llig e n t. A ft eras ki ng Sant os a s er i es of ques t i ons thatpr obed i nt o w hathe w ant ed and w hathe k n ew w ith resp ec t t o self-rep rese n tat ion , the M ag istrate Ju d g e c o n clud ed that S an tos’s w ai verof couns el w as know i ng, vol unt ary , and i nt el l i gent . B efor e the s t artof tr i al , the D istri ct C o u rtco n d u cted an o ther F are tt a c o ll o q u y , an d also co n clud ed that S an tos’s w a iv e r w a s v a lid . F o llo w in g trial, S a n to s w a s c o n v icte d o n a ll co u n ts, a n d se n ten c e d to 2 4 0 m o n th s ’ i m p ri s o n m e n t. T he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3231, and w e have ju ri s d ic tio n p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 a n d 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 4 2 . II. O n a p p e a l, S a n to s a rg u e s, a m o n g o th e r th in g s, th a t h is w a iv e r o f th e rig h t to couns el w as notknow i ng, vol unt ary , and i nt el l i gent , and thathi s s ent ence w as pr ocedur al l yunr eas onabl e. 14 A. B efor e a c r i m i nal defe ndantcan be perm i t t ed t o pr ocee d pr o s e, a courtm us tm ake cert ai n t hathe i s know i ngl y , vol unt ar i l y , and i nt el l i gent l yw ai vi ng hi s Si xth A m endment r i ghtt o couns el . See, e. g. , Far et t a v. C al i forni a, 422 U . S. 806, 835 ( 1975) . B eca us e of t he s i ngul ari m por tof the r i ghtt o couns el , w e have i ns t ruct ed that“[c ] our t s m us ti ndul ge everyr eas onabl e pr es um pt i on agai ns ta w ai verof couns el . ” B uhl v. C ooks ey , 233 F. 3d 7 8 3 , 7 9 0 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). A c c o rd in g ly, su c h a w a iv e r “ o u g h t n o t [ b e ] a c c e p t[ e d ] . . . abs enta pene t r at i ng and compr ehens i ve exa m i nat i on of al l the ci r cumst ance s . ” U ni t ed St at es v. Stubbs , 281 F. 3d 109, 118- 19 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons and quot at i ons om i t t ed) . I ti s cl eart hat“the def endant[m us t ] be i nform ed of a l l r i s ks and cons equenc es as s oci at ed w i t h hi s deci s i on fors el f- r epr es ent at i on. ” U ni t ed St at es v. Pepper s , 302 F. 3d 1 2 0 , 1 3 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) (em p h asis in o ri g inal). “O u r rev iew o f w h ethe r a d ef en d an t’ s w ai verof couns el w as know i ng and i nt el l i genti s pl enaryas i ti nvol ves onl yl egal i s s ues . ” S tu b b s , 2 8 1 F .3 d a t 1 1 3 n .2 . In Pep pers, w e setforth a seri es of q uest i on s, som e w i t h sub part s, that pr ov i des a “u sef u l fram ew o rk f

o r th e c o u rtto as su re it self tha t a de fe n d an t’ s d ec isi o n to p roc ee d p ro s e i s know i ng and vol unt ary . ” 302 F. 3d at136. I n U ni t ed St at es v. J ones , w e obs erved t hat“[a ] l t hough no s cr i pt ed r eci t al i s r equi r ed forthi s i nqui r y , w e do r equi r e thatal l of the s ubj ect s cover ed i n t he model ques t i ons s etfor t h i n Pepper s be ful l yexpl or ed i n t he in q u ir y , to th e e x te n t th o s e s u b je c ts a re re le v a n t.” 4 5 2 F .3 d 2 2 3 , 2 3 4 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ).Indeed , S antos r ecog nized that there had al readybeen j ustsuch a c oll oq uy . (See JA 2 113 ( “M r . Sant os : Y ourH onor , I bel i eve I di d m ycol l oquyback i n O ct ober19 . ”) ; i d. at th 115a ( “M r . Sant os : Y ourH onor , I bel i eve I ’ ve al r eadyt aken mycol l oquyback on O ctob er 9 th. I d o n ’tk n o w if an o ther o n e is n ee d ed b ylaw . ”).) 5 E ach a nd everyPepper s / J ones s ubj ectw as cover ed al m os tw or d forw or d i n t he col l oquyconduct ed byt he M agi s t r at e J udge atthe t i m e Sant os el ect ed t o pr ocee d pr o s e; i ndeed, ator al ar gum entbefor e us hi s couns el des cr i bed thatcol l oquyas “per fec t . ” The D i s t r i ctC our tconduct ed y etanothercol l oquyon t he daytr i al w as t o comm ence aft er c o n f irm in g th a t S a n to s w a n ted to p ro c e e d p ro se , a c o llo q u yin w h ich th e C o u rt w e n t in to al l butt w o of the Pepper s s ubj ect s and w entbey ond Pepper s w hen i tques t i oned Sant os aboutt he Sent enci ng G ui del i nes . Sant os has notexpl ai ned w hy , i n hi s vi ew , the D i s t r i ct C our tw as obl i gat ed t o conductan addi t i onal compl et e col l oquyw hen i thad al r eadybeen det erm i ned thathi s w ai verof the r i ghtt o couns el w as know i ng, vol unt ary , and i nt el l i gent . M or eover , Sant os neverw aver ed i n hi s des i r e t o r epr es enthi m s el f atany

2 poi ntpr i ort o ordur i ng s ent enci ng, norw as ther e anychange i n ci r cumst ance s betw een th e e n d o f

h is tria l in Ja n u a ry , 2 0 0 8 a n d h is s e n ten c in g h e a rin g in Ju ly , 2 0 0 8 . A b se n t a r evoca t i on of hi s w ai verors om e otherchange i n ci r cumst ance s befor e s ent enci ng, the D i s t r i ctC our thad no r eas on, l etal one an obl i gat i on, t o r evi s i tthe w ai verques t i on and co n d u ct an o ther F are tt a c o ll o q u y . C f. U n it ed S tat es v . M o d en a, 30 2 F . 3 d 6 3 0 -31 (6th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). T h e re co rd re flec ts th e so rto f f u ll an d p en etrati n g ex am ination that w e re q u ir eS an tos’s ap p ell ate c o u n sel ex p en d s m u ch ti m e a n d en erg yp o inti n g o u t Sa n tos’s 3 defi ci enci es i n r epr es ent i ng hi m s el f attr i al . B utthe i s s ue her e i s notw hether , aft erthe fac t , Sant os tur ned outt o be a good r epr es ent at i ve forhi m s el f. T o t he contr ary , the i s s ue i s w hetherhe v al i dlyw ai ved t he ri gh tt o co un sel . A ccordi ng l y , w e w i l l no tdis cuss S a n to s ’s tr ia l s tr a te g yo r a n yd e f ic ie n c ie s in h is p e rf

o rm a n c e . Sant os err oneous l ychar act er i zes thi s al l eged e r r oras a pr obl em of subs t ant i ve 4 rea so n ab lene ss rathe r th an p roc ed u ral reaso n ab lene ss: “A ssu m ing , arg u en d o , that there w as no pr ocedur al err or[i n s ent enci ng a def endantw ho s houl d nothave r epr es ent ed hi m s el f] , t he s ent ence w as nots ubs t ant i vel yr eas onabl e bec aus e the courtfai l ed t o fol l ow the re q u ir ed sen tenc ing an aly sis. ” (A p p ell an t’ s B r. 2 9 . ) 6 pur s uantt o Pepper s and J ones . Sant os m ade the dec i s i on t o w ai ve couns el ; w e nee d not 3 re v is it th a t d e c is io n s im p ly b e c a u s e h e is d is p le a s e d w ith th e ju ry’s v e rd ic t. B. Sant os al s o cont ends t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n nots uffi ci ent l ydi s cus s i ng t he 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f

a c to rs b e f

o re im p o sin g se n ten c e . T h e re is n o m e rit to th is 4 c o n ten tio n . In lig h t o f

th e a rg u m e n ts ra ise d , the f a c ts p re se n ted in th e p re se n ten c e re p o rt, and the ci r cumst ance s s ur r oundi ng Sant os and the cr i m es of w hi ch he w as convi ct ed, t he C o u rt’s d isc u ss io n o f

th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f

a c to rs, a lb e it b rie f

, w a s e n tirelya d e q u a te. T h e re is al s o no m er i tt o t he cont ent i on t hatSant os s houl d nothave be en s ent ence d beca us e he r e p r e s e n t e d h i m s e l f

a tt h e t r i a l . ( S e e A p p e l l a n t ’ s B r . 2 9 . ) T h i s a r g u m e n ti s s i m p l y a d if f e re n t v e rs io n o f

th e F a re tta c la im re

je c te d a b o v e . III . F o r t h e f o re g o in g re a s o n s , w e w ill a f f ir m th e ju d g m e n t o f

c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e .I n l i ghtof ourdeci s i on i n U ni t ed Stat es v. Jones , 452 F. 3d 223 ( 3d C i r . 2006) , the 5 a d e q u a c yo f

th e D istric t C o u rt’s in q u iryre g a rd in g S a n to s’s w a iv e r o f c o u n se l at tria l is o p e n to q u e stio n , b u t u lti m a telyth e e x c h a n g e b e tw e e n th e C o u rt a n d S a n to s a p p e a rs to h av e b ee n su ff

ici en t. In Jones , w e emphas i zed thati f a di s t r i ctcour tdoes notengage a defe ndanti n a col l oquythatcover s t he i s s ues devel oped i n Fa re tta v . C a lif o rn ia , 422 U . S. 806 ( 1975) , and l at eri n U nited S tates v. P epp ers , 3 0 2 F .3 d 1 2 0 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 ), “it fai l s t o es t abl i s h t hatt he w ai veri s know i ng, i nt el l i gentand vol unt ary ” and c an thus re q u ir e a re v e rs a l o f

th e ju d g m e n t. I

d. at231 ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . H er e, how ever , the col l oquyatt r i al came notl ong aft era ful l col l oquybefor e the magi s t r at e j udge dur i ng a pr obabl e ca us e and de t ent i on hear i ng. ( J A 70- 82; J A 115( a) - 115( d) ) . M or eover , the defe ndantt w i ce i ndi cat ed underques t i oni ng bythe D i s t r i ctJ udge thathe had be en th ro u g h th e c o llo q u yo n c e b e f o re . ( See J A at113 ( “M r . Sant os : Y ourH onor , I bel i eve I d id m yc o llo q u yb a c k in [ sic ] O c to b e r 1 9 .”); id . a t 1 1 5 a (“ M r. S a n to s : Y o u r H o n o r, I th bel i eve I ’ ve al r eadyt aken mycol l oquyback on O ct ober9 . I don’ tknow i f anotherone th i s n e e d e d b yl a w. ” ) . ) Th e p r e s e n tc a s e i s th u s d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f r o m Jones , w h ere there h ad n o t bee n a d iscu ssion o f w aive r w ith a m ag istrate jud g e sh o rt lyb ef o re the d ef

en d an t’ s tr ia l. See J

ones , 4 5 2 F .3 d a t 2 2 6 -2 7 . 7 U S A v . Sa n to s , N o. 08- 1825 J OR DAN, C i r cui tJudge , co n c u rrin g in p a rt a n d d iss e n tin g in p a rt

W hi l e I agr ee w i t h m ycol l eague s i n t he M aj or i t ythatSant os ’ s w ai verof hi s r i ght t o couns el atbot h hi s pr e- t r i al pr ocee di ngs and attr i al w as know i ng, i nt el l i gent , and v o lu n tar y , I b e liev e th a t th e f a ilu re o f th e D istric t C o u rt to m a k e a n yin q u irya t all in to 5 Sant os ’ s cont i nued des i r e t o r epr es enthi m s el f ats ent enci ng vi ol at ed l ong- s t andi ng pr ece dentt hatr equi r es cour t s t o aff i r m at i vel ypr ot ecta def endant ’ s r i ghtt o couns el at everycr i t i cal s t age of

a cr i m i nal pr ocee di ng. I ther efor e conc uri n t he j udgm entt o t he ext enti tuphol ds Sant os ’ s convi ct i on, but , s i nce I w oul d vaca t e Sant os ’ s s ent ence and re m a n d f o r a re se n ten c in g th a t w o u ld in c lu d e a n in q u iryin to w h e th e r S a n to s c o n tin u e s to8

w ai ve couns el , I r es pect ful l ydi s s entas t o t he por t i on of the j udgm entuphol di ng the s ent ence . M or e than s i xt yy ear s ago, i n V on Mol tke v . G i l l i es , 332 U . S. 708 ( 1948) , the S u p r e me Co u r ti n s t ru c t e d t h a ti ti s “ t h e s o l e mn d u t yo f a f e d e r a l j u d g e b e f

o r e wh o m a defe ndantappea r s w i t houtcouns el t o m ake a thor ough i nqui r yand t o t ake a l l s t eps n ec essa ryto insu re the fu ll est p rotec ti o n o f th is co n sti tuti o n al ri g h t [t o co u n sel] at ever y s tage of the pr ocee di ngs . ” Id . at722 ( B l ack, J . , pl ur al i t yopi ni on; emphasi s added) . O ne m ig h t re a d th e italic ize d p o rtio n o f th a t q u o tatio n , as th e M a jo rityh e re e v id e n tlyd o e s, to m ean thata j udge’ s dut yi s t o be as s ur ed atl eas tonce thatthe def endant ’ s r i ghtt o couns el has been de al tw i t h s o t hor oughl yas t o gi ve pr ot ect i on t o t hatr i ghtthr oughoutthe ent i r etyof the pr ocee di ngs . A l t ernat i vel y , one mayunder s t and the admoni t i on t o be that

“ a t ev e rysta g e ” th e ju d g e m u st ta k e ste p s to e n su re th a t th e rig h t to c o u n se l co n tin u e s to be pr ot ect ed. T hati s how I under s t and i t , part i cul ar l yi n l i ghtof ourow n deci s i ons that h a v e e l a b o r a t e d o n a n d e mp h a s i z e d th a tl a n g u a g e f r o m V on Mol tke . F o r e x a m p le, in Un i t e d

S ta t e s v . Sa l e mo , 61 F. 3d 214 ( 3d C i r . 1995) , w e vac at ed a se n ten c e a n d re m a n d e d f o r re -se n ten c in g w h e n th e D istric t C o u rt f a iled to c o n d u c t at s e n t e n c i n g a w a i v e rc o l l o q u y a s r e q u i r e d b y Fa re tta v . C a lif o rn ia , 422 U . S. 806, 835 ( 1975) ( “[The def

endant ] s houl d be made aw ar e of the dange r s and di s advant ages of s el fre p re se n tatio n , so th a t th e re c o rd w ill e sta b lish th a t ‘h e k n o w s w h a t h e is d o in g a n d h is choi ce i s m ade w i t h ey es open. ’ ”) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . T he def endant , Sal emo, had bee nT hatobs ervat i on w as del i ver ed bef or e the dec i s i on i n U

ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 543 6 U . S. 220 ( 2005) , m ade the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes advi s oryr atherthan mandat ory . Y et e v e n in a p o st- B ookerw o rld it rem a in s tru e th a t th e G u id e lin e s a re th e sta rtin g p o in t in th e e x e rc is e o f

ju d ic ia l d is c re tio n , U

n itedS ta tes v . A li , 508 F. 3d 136, 142 ( 3d C i r . 2007) (no ti n g that the f

ir st st ep fo r distr ictco u rt s in se n tenc ing af ter B ookeri s “t o cal cul at e a 9 r epr es ent ed bycouns el att r i al , unl i ke Sant os i n t he pr es entcas e. B ut , j us tas i n t hi s cas e, t he governm enti n Sa l e mo ar gued thatno i nqui r yaboutw ai verw as neede d atthe sen tenc ing stag e b ec au se th e d istri ct co u rtco u ld inf er tha t “S alem o u n d erstoo d the n ature o f th e se n ten c in g p ro c e e d in g a n d th e p o ss ib le c o n se q u e n c e s” a n d th a t “h e w a n ted to r epr es enthi m s el f ats ent enci ng. ” Sa l e mo 6 1 F .3 d a t 2 1 8 . W e re jec ted th a t ar g u m e n t, q u o t i n g t h e a f

o r e - c i t e d l a n g u a g e f

r o m V on Mol tke and emphas i zi ng the “a teverys t age” p o rt io n o f

th e q u o te . I

d. at219. W e then obs erved that“[n] ei t herl ogi c norpr ece dent s u p p o rt s c a rv in g o u t a n e x c e p tio n w h e n th e w a iv e r o c c u rs a t s e n te n c in g .” I d. a t 2 1 9 . Si gni fi cant l yfort he pr es entcas e, w e not ed that“the i nqui r yats ent enci ng need on l ybe tai l ored t o thatproceed i ng and the co nsequ ences t hat m ayfl ow from i t ” and so “nee d notbe as exhaus t i ve and s ear chi ng as a s i m i l ari nqui r ybefor e the conc l us i on of t r i al . ” I d. N evert hel es s , w e s t r es s ed that“s ent enci ng i s a cr i t i cal and oft en t i m es compl i cat ed partof the cr i m i nal pr oces s thatcont ai ns s ubt l et i es w hi ch maybe bey ond t he a p p re c ia tio n o f

th e a v e ra g e la yp e rs o n s e e k in g to re p re s e n t h im /h e rs e lf.” I d. at220. A nd w e i ndi cat ed thats om e i nqui r yi nt o w ai verof couns el i s part i cul ar l yi m port antat s ent enci ng beca us e i tm aybe that“one’ s ul t i m at e fa t e i s det erm i ned more bythe a p p lic a tio n o f

th e G u id e lin e s th a n th e d e te rm in a tio n o f in n o c e n c e o r g u ilt.” Id . 6defe ndant ’ s G ui del i nes s ent ence pr eci s el yas theyw oul d have be for e B ooker ”) , and that

“[t ] he Sent enci ng G ui del i nes cont ai n a compl ex pr ocedur e fordet erm i ni ng the appr opr i at e i ncr eas e i n offe ns e l evel forconvi ct i on of m ul t i pl e count s . ” Sa l e mo , 61 F. 3d at220 ( ci t i ng U

ni t ed Stat es v. Johns on , 931 F. 2d 238, 242 ( 3d C i r . 1991) ( i nt ernal br acke t o m itte d ). S e e a lso U

n itedS ta tes v . Sm ith , 9 9 7 F .2 d 3 9 6 , 3 9 8 (8 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ) ( G ib s o n , J ., concurr i ng) ( “The gui del i nes . . . have c r eat ed a c om pl ex hyper t echni cal s y s t em consumi ng g re a t a m o u n ts o f

ju d ic ia l tim e f

o r b o th tr ia l a n d a p p e lla te ju d g e s .” ).

10 T he di s t r i ctcour ti n Sal em o di d notconducta “thor ough, ” i d. a t 2 1 9 , a n d “ p ro p e r,” i d. at 21 8 , inq u iryab o u t th e d ef en d an t’ s w aive r of

co u n sel at sen tenc ing , an d w e w ere t hus r equi r ed t o vaca t e and r emand forr es ent enci ng. I n t he pr es entcas e, the D i s t r i ct C our tdi d notconductany i nqui r yw hat s oeveri nt o Sant os ’ s w ai verof couns el at se n ten c in g . F ro m th e p e rsp e c tiv e o f th e g o v e rn m e n t an d th e M a jo rity , itm ig h t b e sa id th a t Sa l e mo i s i nap po si t e beca use t here had been no previ ou s w ai ver col l oq uyi n thatcase w h ile th e re h a d b e e n tw o in th is o n e . I ca n n o t es c a p e th e im p re ss io n , h o w e v e r, th a t, i n hi ghl i ght i ng t he part i cul arl egal compl exi t i es pr es ent ed ats ent enci ng, and i n r ej ect i ng t he governm ent ’ s ar gum entabouti nferr i ng w ai verfr om the r ecor d, ouropi ni on i n Sa l e mo s t ands fort he pr opos i t i on t hats om e i nqui r yi nt o w ai verm us tbe made ats ent enci ng, even w hen a de fenda nthas pr evi ous l ys ai d ordone s om ethi ng t o as s erthi s r i ghtt o s el fr epr es ent at i on. T hati m pr es s i on i s deepe ned byot herdeci s i ons of ourC our t . I n U ni t ed Stat es v. P epp ers , 302 F. 3d 120 ( 3d C i r . 2002) , w e found c ons t i tut i onal err orw hen the di s t r i ct cour tfai l ed t o appr i s e the def endant“of the ful l r ange of r i s ks and s tructur al l i m i t at i ons t hatw oul d be att endantupon [the def endant ] s houl d he pr ocee d pr o s e . . . . . ” Id . a t 1 3 4 .11

I n U n itedS ta tes v . W

e lty , 674 F. 2d 185 ( 3d C i r . 1982) , w hi l e di s cus s i ng the dange r s of pr ocee di ng pro se , w e n o ted th a t af ter th e ju ryh a n d e d d o w n a v e rd ict f o llo w in g a trial in w hi ch the def

endanthad bee n w i t houtcouns el , the def endant , “r eal i zi ng the nee d fort he a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l a t s e n te n c in g ,” e n g a g e d c o u n s e l f o r t h e s e n te n c in g p ro c e e d in g . Id . at191- 92 . C

f. Joh nson v. Zerbst , 304 U . S. 458, 465 ( 1938) ( “W hi l e an a ccus ed may w ai ve the r i ghtt o couns el , w hethert her e i s a pr operw ai vers houl d be cl ear l ydet erm i ned byt he tr i al cour t , and i tw oul d be fi t t i ng and appr opr i at e forthatdet erm i nat i on t o appea r u p o n th e re c o rd .” ). T he M aj or i t ys ay s t hat“Sant os has notexpl ai ned w hy , i n hi s vi ew , the D i s t r i ct C our tw as obl i gat ed t o conducta compl et e col l oquyw hen i thad al r eadydet erm i ned that hi s w ai verof the r i ghtt o couns el w as know i ng, vol unt aryand i nt el l i gent . ” ( M aj . O p. at I I A ) . T hatcomm ent , how ever , i m pl i es thati tw as Sant os ’ s bur den t o once a gai n r ai s e the q u e stio n o f

h is rig h t to c o u n se l, w h e n th e law p lac e s th e b u rd e n o n th e D istric t C o u rt to aff i r m at i vel y“t ake a l l s t eps nece s s aryt o i ns ur e the ful l es tpr ot ect i on of thi s cons t i tut i onal r i ght. . . . ” V

on Mol tke , 332 U . S. at722. I do notthi nk i tw as i ncumbenton t he D i s t r i ct C o u rt to c o n d u c t at s e n ten c in g a n o th e r c o m p lete c o llo q u yo f th e so rt su g g e ste d in P epp ers . S e e Sa l e mo , 6 1 F .3 d a t 2 1 9 (“ th e in q u irya t se n ten c in g n e e d o n lyb e tailo re d to t hatpr ocee di ng and the cons equenc es thatm ayfl ow fr om i t ”) . A nd I r epea touroft - s t at ed as s ur ance t hatt her e i s “no t al i s m ani c form ul a forthe di s t r i ctcour t ’ s i nqui r y . ” Jones , 452 F .3 d a t 2 2 9 (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s, b ra c k e ts, a n d c itatio n o m itt e d ). A s S a n to s h im se lf12

i ntui t ed ( see supra n .1 ), a re -r u n o f th e s a m e c o llo q u ya t e v e ry st a g e is n o t a n e c e s s ity. N onethel es s , s i nce the tr i al had conc l uded and s om e s i x m ont hs had pas s ed s i nce the D istri ct C o u rten g ag ed in an yinq u iryinto the d ef en d an t’ s w aive r of

co u n sel, the C o u rt s h o u ld h a v e m a d e a “ s u f f ic ie n tly p e n e tr a tin g in q u ir yto s a tis f yits e lf ” a t s e n te n c in g , w hi ch i s a di s t i nctand cr i t i cal s t age of cr i m i nal pr ocee di ngs , thatSant os ’ s w ai verw as k n o w in g , in te llig e n t a n d v o lu n ta ry. See P epp ers , 302 F. 3d at130- 31 ( “I ti s the t ens i on betw een the r i ghtt o have c ouns el and the r i ghtt o r epr es entones el f thatpl ace s upon t he trial c o u rt th e w e ig h tyre sp o n sib ili tyo f c o n d u c tin g a su f

f icie n tlyp e n e tra tin g in q u iryto sa tisf yitse lf th a t th e d e f

e n d a n t’s w a iv e r o f

c o u n se l is k n o w in g a n d u n d e rsta n d in g a s w e ll a s v o lu n tar y .”); s ee al

s o G ar dnerv. F l or i da , 430 U . S. 349, 358 ( 1977) ( “[I ] ti s now cl ear t hatt he s ent enci ng pr oces s , as w el l as the tr i al i t s el f, m us ts at i s fythe r equi r ement s of the D ue Pr oces s C l aus e. . . . [S] ent enci ng i s a cr i t i cal s t age of the cr i m i nal pr ocee di ng atw hi ch [th e d ef en d an t] is en ti tl ed to the ef fe cti v e a ssist an ce o f c o u n sel. ”) In sh o rt, I d o n o t b e liev e th a t V on Mol tke orourow n cas e l aw perm i t s a “onc e and done” – oreven, as i n t hi s cas e, a “tw i ce a nd done” – a ppr oach t o t he i nqui r yi nt o a defe ndant ’ s des i r e t o pr ocee d pro se . T h e jo b is o n lyd o n e w h e n th e re c o rd re f lec ts s uffi ci entcar e byt he di s t r i ctcour tt o s afe guar d t he r i ghtt o couns el “ateverys t age of t he pr ocee di ngs . ” V

o n Mo ltk e , 332 U . S. at722. W hi l e ther e maybe l egi t i m at e deba t e about exac t l yw hatcons t i tut es a s epar at e s t age of a cr i m i nal pr ocee di ng and w hatcons t i tut es an adequa t e i nqui r yateac h s t age, I t hi nk atl eas tthi s m uch i s cl ear : s ent enci ng i s a di s cr eet13

sta g e , an d a d istric t ju d g e m u st d o so m e th in g a t se n ten c in g to b e sa tisf ied th a t a d e f e n d a n t ’ s w a i v e ro f

c o u n s e l r e m a i n s k n o w i n g , i n t e l l i g e n t , a n d v o l u n t a r y. C ons equent l y , t o t he ext entnot ed, I di s s entand w oul d vaca t e and r emand for r es ent enci ng.