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 7-7-2009 

# U SA v . F r ank P or t e r 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 . 08-2498

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 . F r ank P or t e r " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1059. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1059NOT 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- 2498

_____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. F RANK PORT ER, A ppel l ant

O n A p p e a l F ro m th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt

fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( C r i m i nal N o. 2- 00- cr - 00568- 1) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e H ar ol d A . A ckerm an S u b m itted U n d er T h ir d C ir cu itL A R 3 4 . 1 (a)

M ay29, 2009 B efore: F ISH E R , C H A G A R E S , and C O W E N , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: J ul y7, 2009)

__________________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

__________________ C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udge. Couns e l fo rFr a nk Port e rha s move d, pu r s ua ntt o Ande r s v. Cal i fo r ni a , 38 6 U. S.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. T hi s C our thas 1 j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291. 2 738 ( 1967) , forperm i s s i on t o w i t hdr aw as couns el i n t hi s cas e. Forthe r eas ons that fol l ow , w e w i l l gr antt he mot i on and af fi r m Por t er ’ s convi ct i on and s ent ence . 1 I. B e c a u se w e w rite s o lelyf o r th e b e n e f

it o f th e p a rties , w e w ill o n lyb rie f ly sum m ari ze t he essenti al fact s. O n O c to b e r 1 7 , 2 0 0 1 , P o rt e r w a s s e n te n c e d to , in tera lia , fi fty - fi ve mont hs of i m pr i s onm entand thr ee y ear s s upervi s ed r el eas e. Por t erbegan hi s t erm of s upervi s ed r el eas e on M ar ch 14, 2005. T he G overnm entfi l ed a pe t i t i on on J anuary12, 2006, al l egi ng t hatPor t er“vi ol at ed the s upervi s i on condi t i on [of hi s s upervi s ed r el eas e] w hi ch s t at es ‘ Y ou s hal l notcomm i tanotherfede r al , s t at e, orl ocal cr i m e. ’ ” A ppendi x ( “A pp. ”) 27 ( emphasi s om i t t ed) . Por t erpl eade d notgui l t yt o t he al l egat i on, and a he ar i ng w as conduct ed on M ay7, 2008. A tt he hea r i ng, a pr obat i on offi cert es t i fi ed thatPor t er en g ag ed in n ew crim inal co n d u ct, thu s v iolati n g the term s o f h is sup erv ised release . In a d d iti o n , the G o v e rn m e n t in tro d u c e d a Ju d g m e n t o f C o n v ictio n f

ro m th e E ss e x C o u n ty Super i orC our t , N ew J er s ey , r efl ect i ng a convi ct i on foraggr avat ed mansl aught eri n t he f ir s t d e g re e a n d u n la w f

u l p o s s e s s io n o f

a w e a p o n in th e th ir d d e g re e . A p p . 9 , 2 8 . A tt he conc l us i on of the hea r i ng, the D i s t r i ctC our tfound Por t ergui l t yof vi ol at i ng t he t erm s and condi t i ons of hi s s upervi s ed r el eas e. T he def ens e r eques t ed thatthe D i s tr i ct3

C our ts ent ence Por t ert o a t erm of i m pr i s onm entt o run concurr entw i t h hi s St at e of N ew Je rse yp riso n ter m . T h e D istric t C o u rt d e c lin e d to d o so , an d in ste a d se n ten c e d P o rte r to 2 4 m o n th s im p riso n m e n t -- th e sta tu to rym a x im u m c u sto d ial te rm -- to ru n c o n se c u tiv e to th e N e w J e rs e ys e n te n c e . P o rt e r f ile d a tim e ly n o tic e o f

a p p e a l o n M a y1 6 , 2 0 0 8 . II. Por t er ’ s couns el pet i t i ons t hi s C our tt o w i t hdr aw as at t orneyof r ecor d, ar gui ng t hat t here are no no n-fr i vo l ou s i ssues that can be ad van ced o n ap peal. A cop yof d efen se c o u n se l’s b rie f

w a s f u rn ish e d to P o rte r, an d h e w a s g iv e n th irtyd a y s to f ile a b rie f

o n h is ow n behal f. Por t erdecl i ned t o do s o. E val uat i on of an A nder s br i ef r equi r es a tw ofol d i nqui r y : ( 1) w hethercouns el has t hor oughl yexami ned the r ecor d forappea l abl e i s s ues and has expl ai ned w hyanys uch i s s ues ar e fr i vol ous , and ( 2) w hetheran i ndepende ntr evi ew of the r ecor d pr es ent s any n o n -frivo lou s issue s. U n it ed S tat 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 ). W h ere t he A nder s br i ef a ppear s adequa t e on i t s fac e, and the appe l l anthas nots ubm i t t ed a pro se b ri e f , o u r r e v ie w is lim ite d to th e p o rt io n s o f th e re c o rd id e n tif

ie d in th e A n d e rs b ri e f. See i d. at301. W e conc l ude thatt he br i ef i n t hi s cas e i s adequa t e, and thus , i tw i l l gui de ouri ndepende ntr evi ew of the r ecor d. P o rte r’s c o u n se l co m b e d th ro u g h th e re c o rd a n d id e n tifie d se v e ra l issu e s th a t co u ld p o s s ib ly b e ra is e d b e f

o re u s b e f

o re c o n c lu d in g th a t th e yw e re a ll p a te n tly w ith o u t m e ri t. L i kew i s e, ouri ndepende ntr evi ew of “thos e port i ons of the r ecor d i dent i fi ed by[the]4

A nder s br i ef” r evea l s no non- fr i vol ous i s s ues Por t erm i ghtpr ofi t abl yr ai s e on appe al . See i d. A s Por t er ’ s couns el poi nt s out , the D i s t r i ctC our tcompl i ed w i t h t he di r ect i ves of F e d e ra l R u le s o f

C ri m in a l P ro c e d u re 3 2 .1 (b )( 2 ) a n d (c ), a n d w ith 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 3 (c ). S p e c if ica lly , the D istric t C o u rt c o n d u c ted a h e a rin g a n d p ro p e rlyc o n c lu d e d , b ya t lea st a pr eponder ance of the evi dence , t hatPor t erhad vi ol at ed a c ondi t i on of hi s s upervi s ed r el eas e. T he D i s t r i ctC our tt hen af for ded Por t erthe oppor tuni t yt o m ake a s t at ementpr i or t o t he i m pos i t i on of s ent ence , and cons i der ed couns el ’ s ar gum ent s i n favorof i m pos i ng a c o n c u rre n t se n ten c e . T h e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n in re jec tin g th is re q u e s t a n d in im p o s in g a c o n s e c u tiv e s e n te n c e , a n d th e u ltim a te s e n te n c e is re a s o n a b le . A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l gr antcouns el ’ s m ot i on and w i l l aff i r m Por t er ’ s convi ct i on a n d s e n te n c e .