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. 09- 3980

_____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. HAR RY J AC KS ON, A ppel l ant

_____________ APP EAL F ROM THE UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT C OURT F OR THE E AST ERN 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 . A ct i on N o. 08- 731- 001) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le M a ryA . M c L a u g h lin

______________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J ul y16, 2010

______________ B efor e: R E N D E L L , J O R D A N , and G R E E N A W A Y , J R . , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: A ugus t17, 2010)

______________ OP I NI ON G R E E N A W A Y , J R . , C i r cui tJ udge H a rryJa c k so n p led g u iltyto v io latio n s o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 5 1 (a ), co n sp ira c yto i nt er fer ence w i th i nt er s t at e comm er ce byr obbery ; 18 U . S. C . §§ 1951( a) , ( b) ( 1) ( 3) , and ( 2) ( a) , i nt er fer ence w i th i nt er s t at e comm er ce byr obbery , and ai di ng and abe t t i ng; and 18T h e f o ll o w ing fa cts are d raw n fro m the re v ised P rese n tenc e In v esti g ati o n R ep o rt 1 ( “PSR ”) . J acks on’ s fai l ur e t o cont es tthe fa ct s r ecount ed i n the PSR dur i ng hi s s ent enci ng hear i ng cons t i tut es an admi s s i on of thos e fa ct s . U ni t ed St at es v. Si egel , 477 F. 3d 87, 93 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). P ro u t w a s c h a rg e d s e p a ra te ly an d p le d g u ilty to a ll c h a rg e s . 2 2 U . S. C . §§ 924( c) ( 1) and ( 2) , us e of a fi r earm dur i ng a cr i m e of vi ol ence . T he U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe East ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a s ent ence d hi m t o 135
m o n th s ’ i m p ri s o n m e n t. J a c k s o n a p p e a le d to th is C o u rt to c h a lle n g e h is s e n te n c e . J acks on’ s couns el ( “C ouns el ”) pet i t i ons thi s C our tforperm i s s i on t o w i thdr aw fr om re p re s e n tin g J a c k s o n o n a p p e a l, p u rs u a n t to A n d e rs v . C a lif o rn ia , 3 8 6 U .S . 7 3 8 (1 9 6 7 ). Forthe r eas ons addr es s ed bel ow , w e w i l l gr antC ouns el ’ s pet i t i on and af fi r m the s ent ence im p o se d b yth e D istric t C o u rt. I . BA CKGROUND W e w ri t e sol el yfor the b enef i tof the part i es and recou nt onl ythe essenti al fact s. 1 T h e c h a rg e s in th is c a se a ro se f ro m Ja c k so n ’s p a rticip a tio n , w ith Je f f re yP ro u t, i n a n a rm e d ro b b e ryo f

$ 7 0 0 ,0 0 0 . P rio r to th e ro b b e ry , Ja c k so n , w a s te rm in a ted f ro m h is 2 j ob as a guar d atD unbarA r m or ed, I nc. ( “D unbar ”) forr out i nel ys ubm i t t i ng i ncorr ect paperw or k and form aki ng an i ncompl et e ca s h del i very . O n N ovember14, 2008, J acks on and Pr outs t aked outW hi t m an C heck Cashi ng i n Phi l adel phi a, Penns y l vani a, w her e they
aw ai t ed the arr i val of a D unbartruck. T he truck arr i ved, and a gua r d hol di ng a bag of
m oneyent er ed W hi t m an C heck Cashi ng atabout9: 00 a. m . Pr outappr oache d the guar d, pus hed hi m t o t he gr ound, puta gun t o hi s head, and t ook the bag, w hi ch cont ai nedP rou t w as a rrested o n N o v em b er 1 8 , 2 0 0 8 in D elaw are . In th e a p artm en t w h ere 3 P routw as arres t ed, F B I agent s foun d m anynew l y -purchased an d ex pen si ve electroni cs, p lu s $ 3 ,6 0 0 in c a sh , in $ 1 0 0 b ill s. M ik e D in g le, w h o w a s w ith P ro u t at th e tim e o f h is arr est , had an ad dit i on al $8 , 90 0 in cash, al so i n $ 10 0 b i l l s. 3 $700, 000, m os tof w hi ch w er e $100 bi l l s . D ur i ng the r obbery , J acks on hel d the doorof th e s to re s h u t f

ro m o u ts id e . B o th J a c k s o n a n d P ro u t f le d th e s c e n e . A w i tnes s des cr i bed J acks on as w ear i ng a bl ue s w eat s hi r t . A bl ue s w eat s hi r tw as found i n a nea rbyal l ey , al ong w i th a ce l l phone thatcont ai ned Pr out ’ s t el ephone number i n th e a d d r e s s b o o k a n d a t e x tme s s a g e t o J a c k s o n ’ s g i r l f r i e n d th a ts a i d , “ I ’ m o n my m is s io n .” J a c k s o n a ls o c a lle d h is g ir lf ri e n d f ro m a d if f e re n t p h o n e a f

te r t h e ro b b e ry. W h en sh e a sk ed Jac k so n w h yh e w as n o t call ing fro m h is ph o n e, he resp o n d ed , “I d o n ’t k n o w w h e re it is a t.” O n N ovember15, 2008, J acks on w as arr es t ed byFeder al B ur eau of I nves t i gat i on a g e n ts a t 1 4 3 2 -B N o rth 1 5 th S tre e t in P h ilad e lp h ia. H is c a r w a s f o u n d n e a rb y . A g e n ts 3 d isco v ere d a loa d ed C h arter A rm s . 3 8 ca li b er rev o lver insid e o f th e trun k o f Ja ck so n ’s
ca r, as w ell as so m e o f P rou t’ s p ap erw o rk. S u b seq u en t D N A an aly sis r ev ea led P rou t’ s D N A o n the re v o lver. O n M ay26, 2009, J acks on pl ed gui l tyt o al l char ges . T he PSR cal cul at ed Ja c k so n ’s s e n ten c in g g u id e lin e ra n g e a s f o rty -o n e to f

if ty -o n e m o n th s’ im p riso n m e n t, b a s e d o n a to ta l o f

f e n s e le v e l o f

tw e n ty-tw o a n d a c ri m in a l h is to ry c a te g o ry o f I. A
co n sec u ti v e se n tenc e o f e igh ty -fo u r m o n ths’ im p ri so n m en t w as, ho w ev er, m an d atory4

pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 924( c) ( 1) . T hus , the t ot al s ent enci ng r ange w as cal cul at ed as 125 to 1 3 5 m o n th s ’ i m p ri s o n m e n t. A t th e O ctob er 5 , 2 0 0 9 sen tenc ing h ea ri n g , the D istri ct C o u rtad o p ted th e P S R ’s U n ited S tate s S e n ten c in g G u id e lin e s (“ G u id e lin e s” ) c a lcu latio n s, to w h ich Ja c k so n d id notobj ect . Pr i ort o announci ng J acks on’ s s ent ence , the D i s tr i ctC our taddr es s ed J acks on’ s fai l ur e t o r eturn t he s t ol en moneyorpr ovi de i nform at i on as t o i t s l ocat i on: T her e’ s been s om e di s cus s i on m ai nl yby[C ouns el ] aboutpot ent i al fea r , pot ent i al thi s , pot ent i al that . I don’ tknow . B utI do know that th e r e ’ s $ 7 0 0 , 0 0 0 mi s s i n g a n d th a tM r . J a c k s o n h a s n o tc o me forw ar d. I don’ tknow w hetheri t ’ s fea r . I don’ tknow butI do know thatther e’ s $700, 000 m i s s i ng and thatw e al l m ake mi s t akes . A nd as [A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t orney ] M r . W zor ek s ai d, thi s i s w ay b ey o n d a m ist ak e. B u t som eti m es w h en y o u d o so m ethin g that’s v e ryb a d a s th is is, so m e tim e s th e re ’s a c h a n c e to re c tifyit so m e w h a t. Y o u ca n ’ttake b ac k the terro r of the— that w as im p o sed o n the g u ard butm aybe y ou can ge tthe moneyback f orthe— the vi ct i m — the v ictim s. N o t d o n e h e re . A n d n o a ttem p t to , as I u n d e rsta n d it, to dis cuss things. (A pp . V ol. II I at60 -61. ) Th e D i stri ctC ou rtsent enced Jackson t o 1 35 m on ths’ im p ri s o n m e n t. O n O ct ober12, 2009, J acks on fi l ed a not i ce of appea l w i th thi s C our t , as s ert i ng thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on and i m pos ed an unr eas onabl e s ent ence by
s ent enci ng hi m atthe hi ghes tend of the G ui del i nes r ange. Speci fi cal l y , J acks on ar gues thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tpl ace d t oo m uch w ei ghton the fa ctthathe nei therr eturned the sto len m o n e yn o r p ro v id e d in f o rm a tio n a b o u t th e m o n e y ’s lo c a tio n . A b se n t th e a lleg e d lyL o c a l A p p e llate R u le 1 0 9 .2 p ro v id e s, in p e rtin e n t p a rt: 4 W her e, upon r evi ew of the di s tr i ctcourtr ecor d, couns el i s per s uaded that 5 undue w ei ghtthe D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed thes e fa ct s , J acks on ar gues thathi s pos i t i ve per s onal qual i t i es w oul d have r es ul t ed i n a s ent ence atthe l ow erend, orbel ow , the G u id e lin e s ra n g e . O n J anuary29, 2010, C ouns el fi l ed an A nder s br i ef ( the “Bri ef” ) , i n w hi ch s he
a s s e rt e d th a t th e re e x is t n o n o n f ri v o lo u s g ro u n d s f

o r a p p e a l. I I . J UR I S DI CT I ON T he D i s tr i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on under18 U . S. C . § 3231, and w e have j ur i s di ct i on under18 U . S. C . § 3742( a) and 28 U . S. C . § 1291. I I I . S TANDA RD O F REVI EW “I n A nder s v. C al i forni a, 386 U . S. 738 ( 1967) , the Supr eme C our texpl ai ned the gener al dut i es of a l aw y err epr es ent i ng an i ndi gentcr i m i nal defe ndanton appea l w hen the law y er se ek s leav e to w ith d raw fro m co n ti n u ed rep rese n tat ion o n the g rou n d s tha t th ere ar e no nonfr i vol ous i s s ues t o appea l . ” U ni t ed St at es v. M arvi n, 211 F. 3d 778, 779 ( 3d C i r . 2000) . U nderA nder s , couns el s eeki ng t o w i thdr aw fr om r epr es ent at i on m us t“s at i s fy the co urtthat he or she has t ho rough l yscoured the r ecord i n search of a pp eal able i ssues” and then “e xpl ai n w hythe i s s ues ar e fr i vol ous . ” I d. at780. “The C our t ' s i nqui ryw hen
couns el s ubm i t s an A nder s br i ef i s thus tw ofol d: ( 1) w hethercouns el adequa t el yful fi l l ed [Thi r d C i r cui tL ocal A ppel l at e R ul e 109. 2' s ] r equi r ement s ; and ( 2) w hetheran 4the appe al pr es ent s no i s s ue of e ven ar guabl e mer i t , couns el m ayfi l e a

m ot i on t o w i thdr aw and s uppor t i ng br i ef pur s uantt o A nder s v. C al i forni a, 386 U . S. 738 ( 1967) , w hi ch mustbe s erved upon the appe l l antand the U ni t ed St at es . T he U ni t ed St at es m us tfi l e a br i ef i n r es pons e. A ppel l ant m ayal s o fi l e a br i ef i n r es pons e pro se . . . . If [ th e c o u rt] f

in d s a rg u a b le m eritto the ap p ea l, o r th at th e A n d ers b ri ef is i n ad eq u ate to a ssistthe c o u rt i n i t s r evi ew , i tw i l l appoi nts ubs t i tut e couns el , or ders uppl ement al br i efi ng an d restore the c ase to the ca lend ar. T he § 3553( a) fac t or s ar e: 5 ( 1) the natur e and c i r cumst ance s of the off ens e and the hi s t oryand c h a ra c ter istics o f

th e d e f e n d a n t; (2) the n ee d fo r th e se n tenc e im p o sed -- (A ) to re f

lec t th e se rio u sn e ss o f

th e o f f e n se , to p ro m o te r es pectforthe l aw , and t o pr ovi de j us tpuni s hm entforthe o f f e n se ; (B ) to a f f o rd a d e q u a te d e ter re n c e to c rim in a l co n d u c t;

6 i ndepende ntr evi ew of the r ecor d pr es ent s anynonfr i vol ous i s s ues . ” U ni t ed St at es v. Yo u l a , 2 4 1 F . 3 d 2 9 6 , 3 0 0 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 1 ) . Wh e r e f r i v o l o u s n e s s i s p a t e n t , h o we v e r , “ we w i l l notappoi ntnew couns el even i f an A nder s br i ef i s i ns uffi ci entt o di s char ge curr ent couns el ’ s obl i gat i ons t o hi s orhercl i entand thi s court . ” U ni t ed St at es v. C ol eman, 575 F . 3 d 3 1 6 , 3 2 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) (qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). I V . A N A LY SI S T he B r i ef i dent i fi es tw o appea l abl e i s s ues , both of w hi ch C ouns el bel i eves t o be fr i vol ous : ( 1) thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tpl ace d t oo m uch w ei ghton the fa ctthatJ acks on nei therr eturned the s t ol en moneynorfurni s hed i nform at i on aboutthe money ’ s l ocat i on; and ( 2) thatthe s ent ence i t s el f w as unr eas onabl e i n l i ghtof the fa ct or s es t abl i s hed i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) . T hough s t at ed as tw o i s s ues , both conce rn the r eas onabl enes s of the 5(C ) to p ro tec t th e p u b lic f ro m f u rth e r c rim e s o f

th e d e f e n d a n t; and ( D ) t o pr ovi de the def

endantw i th neede d educa t i onal or vocat i onal tr ai ni ng, m edi cal car e, orothercorr ect i onal tre a tm e n t in th e m o st e f f e c tiv e m a n n e r; (3 ) th e k in d s o f

se n ten c e s a v a ilab le; (4) the k ind s o f se n tenc e a n d the s en tenc ing ran g e e stab li sh ed fo r-- ( A ) the appl i cabl e ca t egoryof off ens e comm i t t ed bythe appl i cabl e ca t egoryof def endantas s etfor th i n the g u id e lin e s -- . . . (5 ) a n yp e rt in e n t p o lic ys ta te m e n t- - . . . ( 6) the nee d t o avoi d unw arr ant ed s ent ence di s par i t i es among defe ndant s w i th s i m i l arr ecor ds w ho have be en found gui l tyof s i m i l arconduct ; and (7 ) t h e n e e d to p ro v id e re s titu tio n to a n yv ic tim s o f th e o f f e n s e . 7 se n ten c e im p o se d o n Ja c k so n b yth e D istric t C o u rt. T h e G o v e rn m e n t f iled a b rie f

in
r epl y , agr eei ng w i th C ouns el thatther e ar e no nonfr i vol ous gr ounds forappea l . J acks on di d notfi l e pro se a n in f o rm a l b ri e f

e x p la in in g w h yh is a p p e a l w a s n o t f ri v o lo u s . T o det erm i ne w hethera s ent ence i s unr eas onabl e, w e fi r s tl ook t o w hetherthe
s ent enci ng courtcomm i t t ed a s er i ous pr ocedur al err or , U ni t ed St at es v. L opez- R ey es , 589 F. 3d 667, 670 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( ci t i ng G al l v. U ni t ed St at es , 552 U . S. 38, 51 ( 2007) ) , and then “r evi ew the s ubs t ant i ve r eas onabl enes s of the s ent ence underan abus e of di s cr et i on s t andar d. ” Lopez- R ey es , 589 F. 3d at672. T he appe l l antbear s the “bur den of d em o n str ati n g u n rea so n ab lene ss.” U n it ed S tat es v . T o m k o , 5 6 2 F . 3 d 5 5 8 , 5 6 7 (3d C ir . 2009) ( en banc ) . T he appe l l at e courti s hi ghl ydefe r ent i al t o the D i s tr i ctC our tw hen
r evi ew i ng the s ent ence , beca us e the l ow ercourti s bes ts ui t ed t o i m pos e a s ent ence bas ed
o n th e f a c t s o f th e c a s e . Un i t e d S t a t e s v . As h b u rn , 5 0 2 F . 3 d 3 1 3 , 3 2 9 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 7 ) . As8

l ong as a s ent ence fal l s w i thi n t he br oad r ange of pos s i bl e s ent ence s thatcan be
cons i der ed r eas onabl e i n l i ghtof the § 3553( a) fac t or s , w e mustaff i r m . U ni t ed St at es v. W is e , 5 1 5 F .3 d 2 0 7 , 2 1 8 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). T h e B ri e f

p o s its th a t th e D is tr ic t C o u rt p ro p e rl ya p p lie d th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f a c to rs . T hus , w e must“det erm i ne w hetherthe ‘ § 3553 fac t or s w er e r eas onabl yappl i ed t o the ci r cumst ance s of the ca s e. ’ ” U ni t ed St at es v. K i ng, 604 F. 3d 125, 145 ( 3d C i r . 2010) ( quot i ng U ni t ed St at es v. C ooper , 437 F. 3d 324, 330 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ) . “W e w i l l aff i r m i f a

‘ r eas onabl e s ent enci ng courtw oul d have i m pos ed the s ame se nt ence on thatpart i cul ar defe ndantforthe r eas ons the di s tr i ctcourtpr ovi ded. ’ ” I d. at145 ( quot i ng T om ko, 562 F .3 d a t 5 6 8 ). A ccor di ng t o C ouns el , the D i s tr i ctC our tcons i der ed the fa ctthatthe moneyw as n e v e r re tu rn e d a s a p a rt o f th e n a tu re a n d c irc u m sta n c e s o f th e o f f e n se ; th e 1 3 5 -m o n th pr i s on s ent ence i m pos ed w as w i thi n the G ui del i nes r ange; ther e i s no evi dence thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tw ei ghed the fa i l ur e t o r eturn the s t ol en moneym or e hea vi l ythan anyother f a c to r; a n d th e re is n o e v id e n c e o f a b u se o f d isc re tio n b yth e D istric t C o u rt. W e f in d th a t th e D istric t C o u rt re a so n a b lya p p lied th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f a c to rs in th is
cas e. T he D i s tr i ctC our tt ook i nt o acc ountJ acks on’ s pos i t i ve cha r act er i s t i cs , i ncl udi ng h is ex ce ll en t em p loym en t hist o ryan d the d ed icated su p p o rto f h is fam il y . (A p p . V o l. III at60. ) T he D i s tr i ctC our t , how ever , al s o not ed thatJ acks on’ s gun w as us ed i n the
r obbery , and thatbeca us e J acks on w as fami l i arw i th D unbar ’ s oper at i ons , he mayhaveW h ile th e re is n o e v id e n c e th a t Ja c k so n k n e w th e m o n e y ’s w h e re a b o u ts, C o u n se l, 6 du ri ng an o n-the-r ecord si deb ar, i nd i cat ed thatJackson did kno w w here the m on eyw as, a n d re f u s e d to d is c u s s its lo c a tio n d u e to h is f e a r o f re p ri s a l. ( S e e A p p . V o l. I II . a t 6 2 .) 9 o rc h e stra ted th e c rim e . (Id .) F u rth e r, itis u n d isp u ted th a t Ja c k so n p layed a m a jo r ro le in the arm ed r obbery . T he D i s tr i ctC our tcomm ent ed thatw hi l e J acks on coul d nevert ake back the t err ori m pos ed on the D unbarguar d, he ( J acks on) coul d have mi t i gat ed the d a m a g e d o n e b yg e tti n g th e m o n e yb a c k f o r th e v ictim s. (Id . at 6 1 .) H e d id n o t. 6 V i ew ed as a w hol e, the r ecor d demonstr at es thatthe court“ade quat el ycons i der ed th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f

a c to rs a n d re a so n a b lya p p lied th e m to th e c irc u m sta n c e s p re se n ted in [J acks on’ s ] part i cul arcas e. ” C ooper , 437 F. 3d at332. B eca us e the G ui del i nes s ent ence i m pos ed “f

al l s w i thi n t he br oad r ange f o pos s i bl e s ent ence s thatcan be cons i der ed
r eas onabl e i n l i ghtof the § 3553( a) fac t or s , w e mustaff i r m . ” W i s e, 515 F. 3d at218. For that r eason, w e fi nd that the B ri ef i s adequ at e un der A nd ers . O uri ndepende ntr evi ew of the r ecor d confi r m s thatther e ar e no othernonfr i vol ous i s s ues t o appea l . J acks on ent er ed hi s pl ea i n open court , and di d notcont es tt he P S R ’s c o n te n ts o r t h e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s c a lc u la tio n o f th e G u id e lin e s ra n g e . V. CO NC L US I ON Forthe above
- s t at ed r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the j udgm entof the D i s tr i ctC our tand gr antC ouns el ’ s m ot i on t o w i thdr aw fr om the r epr es ent at i on of J acks on.