2006 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 1-17-2006 

# U SA v . Thom a 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 . 05-1317

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_2006

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 2006 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 . Thom as " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1747. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/1747NOT 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- 1317 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. J AM E S A. T HOMAS a /k /a P u n k in

Jam es A . T ho m as, 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 f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C r i m i nal A ct i on N o. 03- cr - 00098) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e G us t ave D i amond Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J anuary12, 2006 B efor e: B A R R Y , A M B R O and A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed J anuary17, 2006)

OP I NI ON A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udge J a m e s T h o m a s p le d g u ilty to tw o d ru g c h a rg e s a n d a f ir e a rm s p o s s e s s io n c h a rg e .2

B e f o re se n ten c in g h e m o v e d to w ith d ra w h is g u iltyp lea , b u t th e D istric t C o u rt d e n ied h is m o tio n . A lth o u g h T h o m a s h a d m a d e in c u lp a to rysta tem e n ts a f ter h is a rre st a n d in h is pl ea c ol l oquy , he now as s er t s hi s i nnocenc e. H e al s o cl ai m s i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el , a cl ai m t hatcontr adi ct s s t at ement s he made i n t he pl ea c ol l oquy . T he D i s t r i ct Co u r td i d n o ta b u s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n d e n y i n g T h o ma s ’ s p l e a - wi t h d r a wa l mo t i o n s , s o we a f f i r m. I . F act ual B ackground an d P roce dural H i s t ory B eca us e w e ar e w r i t i ng s ol el yforthe part i es , w hatfol l ow s i s a s um m aryof the rel evan tfact s. In O ctob er 2 0 0 2 A ll eg h en yC o u n tyn arc o ti cs d etec ti v es se arc h ed T h o m as’s a p a rtm e n t p u rsu a n t to a se a rc h w a rra n t. F in d in g n o d ru g s in th e a p a rtm e n t, th e yc u t a padl ock off

t he bas ementdoorand s ear ched the bas ement . T her e theyfound evi dence of drug act i vi t y : 600 s t amp bags of he r oi n, s ever al baggi es of coc ai ne, tw o guns , drug par aphernal i a, a di gi t al s cal e, and ca s h. T h e o f f ic e rs re tu rn e d to T h o m a s ’s a p a rt m e n t a n d to ld h im th a t h e w a s u n d e r a rr e s t. H e i ni t i al l ydeni ed know l edge of t he drugs and guns . B utw hen the off i cer s found the key t o t he bas ementpadl ock hi dden i n hi s w i ndow bl i nd, T hom as s ai d, “W el l , I gues s that ki nd of m akes y ourcas e, huh?” H e then s how ed a w i l l i ngnes s t o t ake r es pons i bi l i t yfor t he i t ems found i n t he bas ementand des cr i bed i n det ai l the mar ki ngs on t he her oi n bags and how he hi d t he di gi t al s cal e. E n r out e t o t he pol i ce s t at i on, T hom as cl ai m ed thatheA l t hough hi s br i ef onl ydi s cus s es the tw o pl ea- w i t hdr aw al m ot i ons , T hom as ’ s not i ce 1 of appe al appea r s t o appea l ot heror der s , s uch as the tw o or der s deny i ng hi s m ot i ons for rec o n side rati o n o f th e d en ial s o f th e p lea-w ith d raw al m o ti o n s. W e a ff irm all o f th e o rde rs app eal ed b yT ho m as. 3 w as t aki ng t he r ap foranotherbutadmi t t ed thathe ow ned one of the guns found i n t he b a se m e n t. In M arch 20 03 a fed eral grand juryreturned a n indi ct m ent w i t h thr ee cou nts : pos s es s i on w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e l es s than 100 gr ams of her oi n, pos s es s i on w i t h i nt ent t o di s t r i but e l es s t han 500 gr ams of coc ai ne, and pos s es s i on of a f i r earm bya convi ct ed f e lo n . In A p ril 2 0 0 4 T h o m a s p led g u iltyto th e th re e c o u n ts. A f ter th e p lea c o llo q u y , in w hi ch Thom as agr eed thathe coul d notw i t hdr aw the pl ea i f he e nded up di s appoi nt ed w i t h t he ul t i m at e gui del i ne s ent enci ng r ange, the D i s t r i ctC our tacc ept ed hi s gui l t ypl ea. T hom as ’ s fi r s tcour t - appoi nt ed couns el w i t hdr ew , as di d hi s s econd. W i t h t he as s i s t ance of hi s t hi r d, and curr ent , att orney , he moved t o w i t hdr aw hi s pl ea. T he D i s tr i ct C our tdeni ed thi s m ot i on i n D ece m ber2004. T hom as then fi l ed pr o s e a s econd pl eaw ith d ra w a l m o tio n , w h ic h th e C o u rt a ls o d e n ie d in J a n u a ry 2 0 0 5 . T w el ve day s aft erhi s s econd mot i on w as deni ed, T hom as w as s ent ence d t o 180 m o n th s im p riso n m e n t, fo llo w e d b ysix y e a rs s u p e rv ise d re lea se . H e a p p e a ls th e d e n ials of h i s pl ea-w i t hd raw al m oti on s. 1 I I . Juri s di ct i on and St andard of R evi ew T he D i stri ctC ou rthad j uri sdi ct i on ov er this case un der 18 U . S . C . § 3 23 1 b ecauseT h is pro v isi o n w as p rev iou slyfo u n d in F ed era l R u le of C ri m inal P roc ed u re 3 2 b ef o re 2 t he 2 00 2 am end m ents of the R ules . 4 T hom as w as acc us ed of of fens es agai ns tthe l aw s of the U ni t ed St at es . A s thi s i s an appea l fr om a fi nal j udgm entof convi ct i on and s ent ence , w e have appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291. A s not ed, w e r evi ew foran abus e of di s cr et i on the C our t ’ s deni al of a pr es e n te n c in g m o tio n to w ith d ra w a g u ilty p le a . U ni t ed Stat es v. Jones , 336 F. 3d 245, 252 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). I I I . D i s cus s i on U nderFeder al R ul e of Cri m i nal Pr ocedur e 11( d) ( 2) ( B ) , a cr i m i nal defe ndantm ay w i t hdr aw a gui l t ypl ea a ft ert he courthas acc ept ed i t , butbefor e the s ent ence i s i m pos ed, i f “the def

endantcan s how a fa i rand j us tr eas on forr eques t i ng the w i t hdr aw al . ” D i s tr i ct 2 cour t s m us tcons i dert hr ee f act or s w hen eva l uat i ng a pl ea- w i t hdr aw al m ot i on: “( 1) w hethert he def

endantas s er t s hi s i nnocenc e; ( 2) the s t r ength of the def endant ’ s r eas ons forw i t hdr aw i ng t he pl ea; and ( 3) w hetherthe governm entw oul d be pr ej udi ced bythe w i t hdr aw al . ” Jones , 336 F. 3d at252. T hom as bear s the “s ubs t ant i al ” bur den of d e m o n s tr a tin g h is “ f

a ira n d ju s t” re a s o n f

o r w ith d ra w a l. I

d. “ ‘A s h if

t in d e f e n s e ta c tic s , a change of m i nd, ort he fe arof puni s hm entar e notadequa t e r eas ons t o i m pos e on the governm entt he expe ns e, di ffi cul t y , and r i s k of tr y i ng a def endantw ho has al r eady acknow l edged hi s gui l tbypl eadi ng gui l t y . ’ ” I d. ( quot i ng Un i t e d

S ta t e s v . Br o wn , 2505

F . 3 d 8 1 1 , 8 1 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 )). W i t h r es pectt o t he fi r s tfac t or , the D i s t r i ctC our tdet erm i ned ( i n bot h t he D ece m berand J anuarydeni al s of Thom as ’ s pl ea- w i t hdr aw al m ot i ons ) thathe had not m e a n in g f

u llyre a ss e rte d h is in n o c e n c e . “B a ld a ss e rtio n s o f in n o c e n c e a re in su f

f icie n t to perm i ta def

endantt o w i t hdr aw hi s gui l t ypl ea. ” I d. Such as s ert i ons m us tbe “butt r es s ed byfac t s i n t he r ecor d t hats uppor ta cl ai m ed def ens e. ” Un i t e d

S ta t e s v . Br o wn , 250 F. 3d 8 1 1 , 8 1 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). A ft er a defend ant ent ers a g u iltyp lea , h e “ m u st th e n n o t o n lyre a ss e rt in n o c e n c e , b u t g iv e su f f icie n t re a so n s to expl ai n w hycontr adi ct or ypos i t i ons w er e t aken be for e the di s t r i ctcour tand w hy perm i s s i on s houl d be gi ven t o w i t hdr aw the gui l t ypl ea a nd r ecl ai m the r i ghtt o t r i al . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Jones , 9 7 9 F .2 d 3 1 7 , 3 1 8 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 2 ), s upers eded on othergr ounds by sta tu te as r ecogni

z ed i n U ni t ed Stat es v. R obers on , 1 9 4 F . 3 d 4 0 8 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). T h o m a s d id n o t m e a n in g f u llyre a ss e rt h is in n o c e n c e a n d p ro v id e d o n lyb a ld as s er t i ons of i nnocenc e. H e cl ai m ed thatthe drugs w er e nothi s butfai l ed t o s how that any one el s e coul d have e nt er ed the bas ement ; i tw as padl ocked, and the keyt o t he padl ock w as hi dden i n hi s apart m ent . I n hi s pl ea c ol l oquy , T hom as agr eed thatthe G overnm ent ’ s evi dent i arys um m aryw as corr ect . A s i de fr om a bl ankets t at ementof i nnocenc e, he ca nnotoffe ranyot herr eas on w hyhe t ook contr adi ct orypos i t i ons i n fr ont o f th e D istric t C o u rt. It co rre c tlyd e ter m in e d in b o th th e D e c e m b e r a n d Ja n u a ryd e n ials t hatT hom as fai l ed t o r eas s er tm eani ngful l yhi s i nnocenc e.6

F o r th e se c o n d f

a c to r (h is re a so n s f

o r w ith d ra w in g th e p lea ), T h o m a s a ss e rts i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el . H e cl ai m ed thathi s fi r s tappoi nt ed couns el w as i neff ect i ve for( 1) fai l i ng t o chal l enge the authent i ci t yof a j udge’ s s i gnatur e on a s ear ch w a rra n t, (2 ) f

a ili n g to c a ll ce rta in w itn e ss e s a t th e su p p re ss io n h e a rin g , an d (3 ) f a ili n g to advi s e hi m pr oper l yon t he G overnm ent ’ s bur den, the el ement s of the off ens es , the i n d i c t me n tl a n g u a g e , a n d t h e wa i v e ro f h i s r i g h t s . T h e Di s t r i c tCo u r t

— c o r r e c t l y , we b eli ev e— tw ice f

o u n d T h o m as’s c lai m s o f in ef fe cti v e a ssist an ce lack ing . F u rth er, T hom as ’ s cl ai m s ar e underm i ned byhi s s t at ement s athi s pl ea c ol l oquythathe w as sati sfied to h av e h is l aw y er rep rese n t him an d that h e u n d erstoo d the G o v ern m en t’ s b u r d e n , h i s wa i v e ro f

r i g h t s , a n d t h e c h a r g e s a g a i n s th i m. A s fo r th e third f

ac tor— p rejud ice to the G o v ern m en t— T h o m as’s a rgu m en ts are unavai l i ng. T he G overnm entdoes nothave t o s how pr ej udi ce w hen the “de fenda nthas fai l ed t o demonstr at e thatt he otherfac t or s s uppor ta w i t hdr aw al of the pl ea. ” Jones , 336 F. 3d at255. I n hi s br i ef t o ourC our t , T hom as ci t es an unpubl i s hed Thi r d C i r cui tdeci s i on, Un i t e d S ta t e s v . Do we , 41 Fed. A ppx. 561 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . R egar dl es s of the fa ctthat u n p u b lis h e d c a s e s a re n o t b in d in g a u th o ri ty in th is C o u rt , s ee T hi r d C i r cui tI nt ernal O p e ra tin g P ro c e d u re 5 .7 , Do we d o es n o t adv erse lyaf fe ct ou r disp o sit ion o f th is case . In Do we , t he def

endantdi d notas s er thi s i nnocenc e of a cons pi r acy - t o- di s tr i but e cha r ge; he m e re ly d is p u te d th e q u a n tity o f th e d ru g s to w h ic h h e h a d s tip u la te d . Do we , 41 Fed.7

A ppx. at561. W e hel d t hatt he D i s tr i ctC our tcorr ect l yfound that( 1) D ow e had not p re se n ted c o m p e lli n g e v id e n c e su p p o rtin g th is c laim , (2 ) h is in e f f e c tiv e -a ss ista n c e c laim w as notper s uas i ve, and ( 3) t he G overnm entw oul d be pr ej udi ced byperm i t t i ng a pl ea w ith d ra w a l. I

d. at562–63. T hom as s ugges t s thatD ow e’ s notas s ert i ng hi s i nnocenc e ch an g es th e a n aly sis of

an inef fe cti v e-a ssist an ce claim , b u t w e d isag ree ; th e tw o fa ctors ar e s epar at e. T hom as al s o cl ai m s t hatthe G overnm entw oul d notbe pr ej udi ced he r e. B ut as not ed above , t he G overnm entdoes nothave t o s how pr ej udi ce be caus e Thom as di d not m eethis bu rden on t he o t her tw o fac t ors. I V . C onc l us i on W e h o ld th a t th e D istric t C o u rt tw ice c o rre c tlyd e n ied T h o m a s’s m o tio n s to wi t h d r a w h i s g u i l t yp l e a . W e t h e r e f o r e a f f i r m.