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 Third C ir c uit 10-31-2008 

# U SA v . B ruce James Rob e r t s P re c e de nt i al or N on-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-2796

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al works at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re 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 Third C irc 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 by an authori 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 more 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 . B r uc e Jame s Ro be r ts " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 290. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2008/290A L D - 1 2 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 N o. 08- 2796 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v . BR U CE J A M ES R O BE RT S, 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

forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C r i m . N o. 95- cr - 00225- 2) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e K athar i ne S. H ay den

____________________________________ S u b m itt e d f

o r P o ss ib le S u m m a ryA c tio n P u rsu a n t to T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6

O ct ober17, 2008 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , FU E N T E S and J O R D A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: O ct ober31, 2008)

OP I NI ON

P E R C UR I AM A ppel l antB ruce Rober t s , a fe der al pr i s oner , w as found gui l tyfol l ow i ng a j urytr i al in U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e D istric t o f

N e w Je rse yo f

c o n sp irin g to c o m m it2

b a n k ro b b e ry in v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 1 a n d b a n k ro b b e ry in v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 2113( a) . O n February12, 1996, he w as s ent ence d as a ca r eeroffe ndert o a t erm of i m pr i s onm entof 210 m onths and fi ned $5, 000. 00. W e af fi r m ed the j udgm enton O ct ober 9 , 1 9 9 6 in U n it ed S tat es v . R o b erts, N o . 9 6 -51 4 2 , an d the U n it ed S tat es S u p rem e C o u rt th e re a f ter d e n ied c e rtio ra ri. O n F e b ru a ry2 8 , 1 9 9 8 , R o b e rts f iled a m o tio n to v a c a te s e n te n c e p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 , w h ic h th e s e n te n c in g c o u rtd e n ie d o n th e m e ri ts . O n M ar ch 10, 1999, w e deni ed R obert s ’ r eques tfora ce r t i fi cat e of appeal abi l i tyi n U ni t ed St at es v. R obert s , N o. 98- 6388. O n A ugus t27, 2004, R obert s fi l ed a mot i on i n hi s cr i m i nal cas e, s eeki ng mo d i f i c a t i o n o f

h i s s e n t e n c e u n d e r1 8 U. S . C. § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) o n th e b a s i s o f th e S u p r e me C our t ’ s deci s i on i n 

### Bl ake ly v. W a s hi ngt on, 542 U. S. 296 ( 2004) . In a d d iti o n to docket i ng thi s m ot i on i n R obert s ’ cr i m i nal cas e, the D i s tr i ctC our tC l erk’ s O ffi ce ope ned a new ci vi l cas e, R obert s v. U ni t ed St at es , D . C . C i v. N o. 04- 05045. I n the ci vi l cas e, the s ect i on 3582( c) ( 2) m ot i on w as docket ed as a s ect i on 2255 m ot i on. O n Sept ember7, 2 0 0 7 , R o b e rts f

iled a m o tio n in h is c rim in a l ca se p u rsu a n t to F e d . R . C rim . P ro . 5 2 (b ), in w hi ch he c ont ended thathe w as i ndi gentand “the del egat i on of an i ns t al l m entpl an t o the B ur eau of

Pr i s ons ” t o col l ecthi s fi ne w as i m pr oper . See gene r al l yU ni t ed St at es v. C or l ey , 500 F. 3d 210 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( r es t i tut i on or derw hi ch del egat es t o B O P how defe ndantw i l l payi m pr oper l ydel egat es j udi ci al funct i on) . A gai n, thi s R ul e 52( b) m ot i on w a s d o c k e ted b yth e D istric t C o u rt C ler k ’s O f f ice in b o th R o b e rts’ c rim in a l an d c iv ilR obert s ’ appea l w as t i m el yeven w i thoutperm i s s i on t o appea l i ns ofaras hi s m ot i on 1 i ndi cat ed an i nt entt o appea l , s ee Fed. R . A pp. Pr o. 3, and w as m ai l ed fr om the pr i s on on J une 12, 2008, s ee Fed. R . A pp. Pr o. 4( a) ( 1) ( B ) ( pr ovi di ng for60- dayappea l per i od w hen 3 cases. O n D ece m ber31, 2007, i n the ci vi l cas e, the D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed both the s ect i on 3582( c) ( 2) and R ul e 52( b) appl i cat i ons forr el i ef f orl ack of

j ur i s di ct i on, r eas oni ng thattheyw er e unauthor i zed s econd ors ucce s s i ve s ect i on 2255 m ot i ons . T he courtnot ed furtherthatB l akel yand U ni t ed St at es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) , had notbeen made r etr oact i ve t o cas es on col l at er al r evi ew . See Ll oy d v. U ni t ed St at es , 407 F .3 d 6 0 8 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ), In re : O lo p a d e , 4 0 3 F .3 d 1 5 9 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). R o b e rts d id n o t f ile a t i m el ynot i ce of

appea l of thi s deci s i on i n ei therhi s ci vi l orhi s cr i m i nal cas e. O n M ar ch 24, 2008, R obert s fi l ed a pe t i t i on forw r i tof m andamus i n the i ns t ant crim inal ca se, see k ing d ispo sit ion o f h is secti o n 3 5 8 2 (c)(2) a n d R u le 52 (b) m o ti o n s. (It w as d ated M arc h 1 2 , 2 0 0 8 . ) In a n o rde r en tered o n A p ri l 15 , 2 0 0 8 , the D istri ct C o u rt deni ed the mandam us pet i t i on as m ooton the gr ound thatthes e mot i ons had bee n dis po sed of

byi t s D ecem ber 31, 2007 O rderi n the ci vil case, R ob ert s v. U nit ed S t at es, D .C . C iv . N o . 0 4 -0 5 0 4 5 . T h e c o u rt a ttac h e d a c o p yo f th e D e c e m b e r 3 1 , 2 0 0 7 o rd e r to this A p ri l 15 , 2 0 0 8 o rde r. O n Ju n e 1 8 , 2 0 0 8 , R o b e rts f iled a m o tio n se e k in g p e rm iss io n to a p p e a l th e A p ril 15 or derdeny i ng hi s m andamus pe t i t i on. T hi s s ame i t em al s o w as docket ed as a N ot i ce o f A p p e a l. T h e D istric t C o u rt su b se q u e n tlyg ra n ted R o b e rts p e rm iss io n to a p p e a l. 1U n ited S tate s is a p a rty ); R u le 4 (c )(1 ) (in m a te’ s n o tice o f a p p e a l ti m e lyw h e n d e p o site d in p ri so n ’s m ail sy stem o n o r be fo re last da yfo r fil ing ). 4 O u r C lerk n o ti fied R o b erts bylet ter th at th is ap p ea l w as su b ject t o su m m ary d isp o sitio n u n d e r T h ird C ir. L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6 . R o b e rts w a s in v ited to su b m it ar gum enti n w r i t i ng, buthe has notdone s o. W e w i l l s um m ar i l yaff

i r m the or derof the D i s tr i ctC our tdeny i ng R obert s ’ pet i t i on forw r i tof m andamus a s m oot . U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 27. 4 and I . O . P. 10. 6, w e may su m m a rilyd isp o se o f

a n a p p e a l w h e n it cle a rlya p p e a rs th a t n o su b sta n tial q u e stio n is p r e s e n t e d b yth e a p p e a l . We h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 . Al th o u g h we r evi ew the di s cr et i onaryel ement s of a D i s tr i ctC our t ' s deni al of a w r i tof m andamus for abus e of di s cr et i on, s ee St ehneyv. Perry , 101 F. 3d 925, 929 ( 3d C i r . 1996) , ourr evi ew o v e r t h e n o n -d is c re tio n a ry e le m e n ts , in c lu d in g th e q u e s tio n o f m o o tn e s s , is p le n a ry, id .; R u o cc h io v . U n it ed T ran sp . U n ion , L o ca l 60 , 1 8 1 F . 3 d 3 7 6 , 3 8 2 n . 8 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). I n hi s m andamus pe t i t i on, R obert s s oughtdi s pos i t i on of hi s s ect i on 3582( c) ( 2) and R u le 5 2 (b ) m o tio n s f

o r re lief. T h e se m o tio n s, w h ich h a d b e e n f iled sim u ltan e o u slyin h is civil case , w ere d ispo sed o f b ythe D istri ct C o u rto n D ec em b er 3 1 , 2 0 0 7 . T h e c o u rt ’s p re v io u s a c tio n in d isp o sin g o f th e m o tio n s in h is c iv il ca se f o re sta lled a n yo c c a sio n f o r it t o pr ovi de meani ngful m andamus r el i ef i n hi s cr i m i nal cas e, s ee A r tw ayv. A t t orney G ener al of N ew J er s ey , 81 F. 3d 1235, 1246 ( 3d C i r . 1996) , and i tthus pr oper l ydeni ed R o b e rts’ m a n d a m u s p e tit io n a s m o o t.5

F o r th e f o reg o ing rea so n s, w e w il l sum m aril yaf firm the o rde r of

the D istri ct C o u rt d e n y in g R o b e rt s ’ p e titio n f o r w ri t o f

m a n d a m u s a s m o o t.