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 12-19-2005 

# U SA v . Rob e r t son P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 05-1126

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 l l a no va . 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 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 no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 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 no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" U SA v . Ro be r ts on" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 91. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/91NOT 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. 05- 1126
UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. DON R OB E RT S ON,

Appel 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 f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D
. C
. C r i m . N o. 04- cr - 00103- 7) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Y vet t e K ane
S u b m itted U n d er T h ir d C ir cu itL A R 3 4
. 1 (a)

D ece m ber16, 2005 B efore: S L O V ITE R , S M ITH , and V A N A N T W E R P E N , C i rcui tJudg es. Fi l ed: D ece m ber19, 2005

____ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT
V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udge. A ppel l antD on R ober t s on chal l enges t he l egal i t yof hi s s ent ence i n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he M i ddl e D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, cl ai m i ng t he D i s t r i ctC our tabus edR o b ertson d id n o t th en , an d d o es n o t no w , raise an o b jecti o n u n d er U

ni t ed Stat es v. 1 B ooker , 543 U
. S. ___, 125 S. C t . 738 ( 2005) , pr es um abl ybeca us e he a gr eed a s par tof hi s negot i at ed pl ea a gr eementt hathe w oul d acc epta mi ni m um t en y ears ent ence and f u rt h e r a c c e p t th e th e n -m a n d a to ry S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s a s a p p lic a b le a n d b in d in g . See di s cus s i on i nfr a . 2 its d isc re tio n in im p o sin g th e sta tu to ry m a n d a to ry m in im u m se n ten c e s fo r th e tw o c o u n ts to
w hi ch R ober t s on pl eade d gui l t y : pos s es s i on of a fi r earm i n fur t her ance of drug t r aff i cki ng, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U
. S. C
. § 924( c) ( i ) , and cons pi r acyt o di s t r i but e and pos s es s i on w i t h i nt ent t o di s t r i but e 100 gr ams o f h ero in, in vi ol at i on of 21 U
. S. C
. § 846. W e have j ur i s di ct i on 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 (a )( i) a n d w ill a f f ir m . I. P u rsua n t t o a w ri tt en p lea a g ree m en t, R o b ertson ap p e a re d b ef o re the D istri ct C o u rt on O ct ober4, 2004 and pl eade d gui l t y t o t he t w o count s s et for t h above. A t hi s J anuary3, 200 5 s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g , th e Di s tr i ctC our thear d R ober t s on’ s obj ect i ons t o t he pr es ent enci ng
r epor tand found i n favorof R ober t s on on al l of hi s obj ect i ons . B yor derof the s ame dat e, 1 th e D istric t C o u rt se n ten c e d h im to ten y e a rs im p riso n m e n t, th e lo w e st se n ten c e p o ss ib le
un der t he tw o m and at ory m i nim um sent ences r equ i red byt he ap pli cable s t atutes . B ecause t her e w as no § 5K 1. 1 m ot i on byt he governm entand no s u b stan ti al a s s i s t ance fr om R ober t s on, t he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d nots ent ence hi m bel ow t he r equi r ed mi ni m um s ent ence s
o f f iv e y e a rs e a c h f

o r t h e c o u n ts to w h ic h R o b e rt s o n p le a d e d g u ilty. R o ber t s on’ s couns el s ubs equent l yappea l ed, fi l ed a br i ef pur s uantt o An d ers v. C a lif o rn ia , 386 U
. S. 738 ( 1967) , and s oughtt o w i t hdr aw as couns el of r ecor d, s t at i ng t hat3

anypot ent i al l y appea l abl e i s s ue w as fr i vol ous beca us e the D i s t r i ctC our thad no di s cr et i on t o l ow ert he s ent ence bel ow t en y ear s . T he G overnm entagr eed thatanyappea l w as fr i vol ous . A taboutt he s ame t i m e, R ober t s on fi l ed a pro se b rie f a rg u in g h e w a s e n tit led to
a s e n te n c e re d u c tio n f

o r h is a c c e p ta n c e o f

re s p o n s ib ility. II. T he s t andar d of re vi ew for t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s i nt erpr et at i on and appl i cat i on of t he
r e le v a n t se n ten c in g p ro v isio n s, 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 (b )(1 )(B )(i) a n d 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 4 (c ), is p le n a ry. See, e. g. , U

ni t ed Stat es v. Y

eam an , 194 F. 3d 442, 456 ( 3d C i r . 1999)
. W hetheror notany pot ent i al i s s ues on appea l ar e fr i vol ous or not i s a l egal ques t i on t o be cons i der ed by th is C o u rt in th e f

ir s t in s ta n c e . See A nd ers , 386 U
. S. at 741- 45. W hen ana l y zi ng an A nd ers br i ef, w e as k t w o ques t i ons : “( 1) w hethercouns el adequat el yful fi l l ed [A nder s’]
r equi r ement s ; and (2) w hetheran i ndepende ntr evi ew of the r ecor d pr es ent s anynonfr i vol ous i s s ues . ” U

n itedS ta tes v . Y

o u la , 241 F. 3d 296, 300 ( 3d C i r . 2001)
. U pon s ubm i t t i ng s uch a b rie f , an a tto rn e y ’s d u ties a re to d e m o n stra te to th e c o u rt th a t th e a tto r n e yh a s th o ro u g h ly
e x a m in e d th e re c o rd f

o r a p p e a lab le is su e s a n d d e te r m in e d th a t an yp o ten tiallya p p e a lab le i s s ues ar e fr ivo lous. I n s o doi ng, at t or ney s m us ts at i s fyt he “c ons ci ent i ous exami nat i on”
s t andar d s etfor t h i n A nd ers . See id; see al so A nd ers , 386 U
. S. at744. H er e, R ober t s on’ s couns el corr ect l y det er m i ned t hat R ober t s on: ( 1) fac ed a f i ve y ear
m andat or ys ent ence forpos s es s i on of a f i r earm i n fur t her ance of drug t r aff i cki ng; ( 2) fac ed
a f iv e y e a r m a n d a to ryse n te n c e f o r c o n sp ira c yto d istrib u te a n d p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t toIt a p p e a rs n e ith e r th e g o v e rn m e n t n o r R o b e rtso n ’s c o u n se l h a d o p p o rtu n ityto 2 add res s R ob ert son’s pro se ar gum entbeca us e R ober t s on di d notl i s tthem on t he pr oof of s er vi ce f or m forpurpos es of ef

fec t i ng s er vi ce.

4 di s t r i but e 100 gr ams of her oi n; ( 3) di d not pr ovi de s ubs t ant i al as s i s t ance ; ( 4) w as w i t houtt he benef i tof a § 5K 1. 1 m ot i on byt he governm ent ; and ( 5) di d not obj ect t o t he i m pos i t i on of th e tw o m a n d a to rym in im u m se n ten c e s, th e m in im u m se n ten c e to w h ich h e a g r e e d in h is
n e g o tiate d p lea a g re e m e n t. U n d e r th e se c irc u m sta n c e s, R o b e r ts o n ’s c o u n se l co rre c tly det er m i ned thatt he D i s t r i ctC o u rt co ul d nots ent ence R ober t s on bel ow t he r equi r ed
m andat or y m i ni m um s ent ence s , and pr oper l ydi s char ged hi s dut i es pur s uantt o A nd ers . As
w e hav e st at ed, t he g ov ernm ent agr ees. Up o n o u r o wn r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d a n d t h e p o t e n t i a l l ya p p e a l a b l e i s s u e s t h e r e i n , we agr ee w i t h t he conc l us i ons of R ober t s on’ s couns el and the governm ent , but w e al s o concl ude t ha twe mu s ta d d i t i o n a l l yc o n d u c ta n i n d e p e n d e n tr e v i e w of t h e o n e i s s u e r a i s e d by R ob ert son in hi s pro se br i ef. T her e, R ober t s on ar gued thatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n not 2 g iv in g h im a re d u c tio n in s e n te n c e f o r h is a lle g e d a c c e p ta n c e o f re s p o n s ib ility. O urr eview of the r ecor d on t hi s poi ntconfi r m s t hatR ober t s on’ s acc ept ance of
r es pons i bi l i t yar gum enti s al s o fr i vol ous . R ober t s on’ s pl ea c ame t he day of tr i al , aft ert he G o v e rn m e n t h a d f

u lly p re p a re d f

o r tria l; a n a c c e p tan c e o f re sp o n sib ili ty re d u c tio n s h o u ld
n o rm a llyb e a w a rd e d o n lyw h e re a d e f e n d a n t' s g u ilty p lea p e rm its th e g o v e rn m e n t to a v o id le n g th ya n d u n n e c e s s a ry tria l p r e p a r a t i o n . See U
. S
. S
. G
. § 3 E 1
. 1 , co m m en taryn . 6 (20 0 3 );
s ee al s o U ni t ed Stat es v. H

er nandez , 218 F. 3d 27 2 , 2 8 0 (3d C i r . 2000) ( aff i r m i ng D i s t r i ctA s di s cus s ed, R ober t s on di d notobj ectatt he t i m e of s ent enci ng t o t he i m pos i t i on of 3 t he mandat or ym i ni m um s ent ence s t o w hi ch he ha d agr eed i n hi s negot i at ed pl ea agr eement . I ndeed, ourr evi ew of the s ent enci ng pr ocee di ngs s how s t hatR ober t s on, th ro u g h c o u n s e l, a f

f ir m a tiv e ly re q u e s te d th e te n y e a r s e n te n c e h e u ltim a te ly re c e iv e d
. T hus , even w er e R ober t s on’ s cl ai m non- fr i vol ous , i tw oul d have t o s ur vi ve pl ai n err or re v ie w . See F ed
. R
. C ri m . P
. 5 2 (b). 5 C our t ' s deni al o f d o w nw ar d departur e foracc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i t yunder§ 3E 1. 1( b)
w h e re d e f

e n d a n t p le d g u ilty th e d a yb e f o re tr ia l)
. M or e funda m ent al l y , the r ecor d s how s t hatR ober t s on agr eed t o acc epta mi ni m um
o f ten y e a rs in c a rc e ra tio n , a s re f lec ted b o th in h is n e g o tiate d p lea a g re e m e n t a s w e ll a s h is gui l t ypl ea c ol l oquyi n open cour t . D ur i ng t hat col l oquy , R ober t s on expr es s l yacknow l edged and agr eed that , beca us e of t he m andat or ym i ni m um s r equi r ed byt he tw o s t atut es t o w hi ch he w as pl eadi ng gui l t y , t he s t andar d pr ovi s i ons i n hi s pl ea a gr eementnor m al l yal l ow i ng t he g o v e rn m e n t to re c o m m e n d a d o w n w a rd d e p a rtu re f o r a c c e p tan c e o f

re sp o n sib ili tyw e re n o t, and coul d notbe, of cons equenc e i n hi s cas e. 3 A ccor di ngl y , t he J anuary3, 2005 s ent ence of the D i str ic tC our ti s aff i r m ed and
c o u n s e l ’ s mo t i o n t o wi t h d r a w i s g r a n t e d
. Pu r s u a n tt o T h i r d Ci r c u i tL
. A. R. 1 0 9
. 2 ( b ) , we
cert i fyt hatt he i s s ues pr es ent ed i n t he appe al l ack l egal m er i tand th u s d o notr equi r e the f ili n g o f a p e tit io n f

o r w rit o f

c e rtio ra ri w ith th e S u p re m e C o u rt.