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 6-25-2009 

# U SA v . Rogelio Guevara-C ari 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 . 08-4033

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 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 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 . Ro g el io G uevar a -C ari " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1127. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1127NOT 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- 4033

____________ UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

v. RO GE L I O GUE VAR A- CA RI L L O, 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 M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 07- cr - 00493) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le A . R ich a rd C a p u to

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

J une 11, 2009 B e f o re : M c K E E , H A R D IM A N a n d V A N A N T W E R P E N , C i r cui tJudges .

( Fi l ed: J une 25, 2009)

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________ H A R D IM A N , C i r cui tJudge . R ogel i o G uevar a- C ar i l l o pl eade d gui l tyt o one countof pos s es s i ng contr aband – a hom emade kni fe or“s hank” – w hi l e i ncar cer at ed atFC I Schuy l ki l l , i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 1791. T he D i s tr i ctC our ti m pos ed a w i thi n- G ui del i nes s ent ence of 28 m onths2

i m pr i s onm entand G uevar a- C ar i l l o fi l ed thi s t i m el yappea l , overw hi ch w e have juri sd ict ion p u rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 an d 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 7 4 2 (a). C ouns el forG uevar a- C ar i l l o has m oved t o w i thdr aw pur s uantt o A nders v. C a lif o rn ia , 386 U . S. 738 ( 1967) , and G uevar a- C ar i l l o decl i ned t o s ubm i ta pro se b rie f in r es pons e ther et o. W hen couns el fi l es a mot i on pur s uantt o A nd ers , w e det erm i ne w hether : ( 1) couns el adequa t el yful fi l l ed the A nd ers r equi r ement s , and ( 2) an i ndepende nt re v ie w o f

th e re c o rd p re s e n ts a n yn o n f ri v o lo u s is s u e s . U

ni t ed Stat es v. M

a rv in , 211 F. 3d 7 7 8 , 7 8 0 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). T o m eetthe fi r s tpr ong, appoi nt ed couns el m us texami ne the r ecor d, concl ude that th e re a re n o n o n f

ri v o lo u s is s u e s f

o r r e v ie w , a n d re q u e s t p e rm is s io n to w ith d ra w . U ni t ed S ta tes v . Y

o u la , 2 4 1 F .3 d 2 9 6 , 3 0 0 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 1 ). C o u n se l m u st a c c o m p a n ya m o tio n to w i thdr aw w i th a “br i ef r efe r r i ng t o anythi ng i n the r ecor d thatm i ghtar guabl ys uppor tt he appea l . ” A nd ers , 3 8 6 U. S . a t7 4 4 . Co u n s e l n e e d n o tr a i s e a n d r e j e c te v e ryp o s s i b l e c l a i m, b u t m u st, a t a m in im u m , m e e t th e “ c o n sc ien tio u s e x a m in a tio n ” sta n d a rd se t f o rth in A nd ers . Y

o u la , 241 F. 3d at300. G uevar a- C ar i l l o’ s couns el fi l ed a mot i on t o w i thdr aw al ong w i th an A nd ers br i ef, as s ert i ng thathe “made a thor ough and cons ci ent i ous r evi ew of the r ecor d” r evea l i ng t hat no appea l abl e i s s ues exi s tbeca us e the D i s tr i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on, the gui l typl ea w as know i ng and vol unt ary , and the s ent ence w as r eas onabl e.3

T he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s j ur i s di ct i on i s bey ond ques t i on. G uevar a- C ar i l l o w as char ged undera fe der al s t atut e, 18 U . S. C . § 1791. B eca us e di s tr i ctcourt s have s ubj ectm att er j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e ra l l o f

f e n s e s a g a i n s tth e l a ws o f th e Un i t e d S t a t e s u n d e r1 8 U. S . C. § 3231, ther e i s no vi abl e i s s ue as t o the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s j ur i s di ct i on i n thi s cas e. T h e v ali d ityo f a g u il typ lea turn s o n w h ethe r th e p lea w as “ k n o w ing , v o lun tary and i nt el l i gent . ” U

n itedS ta tes v . T

idw e ll , 521 F. 3d 236, 251 ( 3d C i r . 2008) . A defe ndant c h a llen g in g th e v o lu n tar in e ss o f h is g u iltyp lea m u st e sta b lish th a t th e trial c o u rt f a iled to compl yw i th t he mandat es of B o y k i n v . A la b a ma , 3 9 5 U .S . 2 3 8 (1 9 6 9 ), an d F e d e ra l R u le o f C ri m in a l P ro c e d u re 1 1 (b ). See U ni t ed Stat es v. Schw ei t

z er , 454 F. 3d 197, 202- 03 ( 3d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). T h e D istric t C o u rt a n d th e G o v e rn m e n t in f o rm e d G u e v a ra -C a rillo th ro u g h h is tra n sla to r o f

th e c h a rg e s a g a in st h im , the u n d e rly in g c o n d u c t th a t th e G o v e rn m e n t w o u ld pr ove attr i al , the r i ght s he w oul d be w ai vi ng byent er i ng a gui l typl ea, and the r ami fi cat i ons of pl eadi ng gui l tyt o t he off ens e. G uevar a- C ar i l l o w as al s o as ked a number o f q u e stio n s – in c lu d in g w h e th e r h e w a s s a tisf ied w ith h is c o u rt-a p p o in ted c o u n se l – w hi ch he a ns w er ed i n t he af fi r m at i ve thr ough hi s tr ans l at or . G uevar a- C ar i l l o agr eed that he had c om m i t t ed the ac t s out l i ned i n the i ndi ctm ent , and thathi s pl ea w as vol unt aryand notthe pr oductof coe r ci on orpr om i s es of l eni ency . B as ed on thi s r ecor d, w e fi nd no a p p e a lab le is su e o f

m e rit as to th e v a lid ityo r v o lu n tar in e ss o f G u e v a ra -C a rillo’ s g u ilty pl ea.4

F i n a l l y , th e r e a s o n a b l e n e s s o f th e s e n t e n c e i s a l s o b e y o n d d i s p u t e . We r e v i e w a di s tr i ctcourt ’ s s ent ence forr eas onabl enes s , eval uat i ng both i t s pr ocedur al and s ubs t ant i ve u n d e rp in n in g s u n d e r a d e f e re n tia l a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n s ta n d a rd . G al lv. U ni t ed Stat es , 128 S . C t. 58 6 , 5 9 4 (2 0 0 7 ). In im p o sin g a se n ten c e , the D istric t C o u rt m u st: (1 ) c o rre c tly det erm i ne, as a mat t erof fa ct , and as a mat t erof l aw , the pr operG ui del i nes s ent ence ; ( 2) c o rre c tlyd e ter m in e th e a p p lica b ili tyo f a n yd e p a rtu re m o tio n s; a n d (3 ) e x e rc ise its di s cr et i on t o det erm i ne the appl i cabi l i tyof anyof the r el evant18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) fact ors. See U

ni t ed Stat es v. G unt er , 4 6 2 F . 3 d 2 3 7 , 2 4 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). T he 27 t o 33 m onth G ui del i nes r ange c al cul at ed bythe Pr obat i on O ffi ce w as not di s put ed. T hus , the D i s tr i ctC our tpr oper l yfol l ow ed the fi r s ts t ep of G unt er . T h e se co n d step w as in ap p li ca b le be ca u se n o d ep artures w ere req u ested . T h e third s t ep r equi r ed the C our tt o m ake a n i ndi vi dual i zed a s s es s m entand cons i deral l of the § 3553( a) fac t or s i n det erm i ni ng the fi nal s ent ence . I n i m pos i ng the 28- m onth s ent ence , th e D istric t C o u rt re v iew e d th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f a c to rs e x ten siv e ly , cle a rlyin d ica ted its co n side rati o n o f th o se f ac tors, an d im p o sed it s sen tenc e in ligh t of tho se f ac tors. In expl ai ni ng i t s j udgm ent , the D i s tr i ctC our texpl i ci t l ynot ed that : ( 1) pos s es s i on of a w ea p o n in p ri so n , reg ard less o f m o ti v e, i s a se ri o u s o ff en se; (2) G u ev ara -C aril lo’s c rim in a l h isto ryw a s n o t o v e rsta ted b yth e G u id e lin e s c a lcu latio n ; (3 ) th e se n ten c e b o th pr om ot ed r es pectforthe l aw and det err ed other s cont empl at i ng the s ame act i vi ty ; and ( 4) the s en tenc e w as less th an a re ce n tl y -i m p o sed sen tenc e o n a sim il arly -si tuated inm ate. I t5

then i m pos ed a s ent ence of 28 m onth i m pr i s onm ent , w hi ch w as one mont h above the b o tto m o f

th e G u id e lin e s ra n g e . A c c o rd in g ly , w e f in d n o a p p e a lab le is su e o f m e rit as to G uevar a- C ar i l l o’ s s ent ence . H avi ng exhaus t ed the pos s i bl e ave nues form er i t or i ous appea l , w e fi nd that c o u n se l’s d isc u ss io n o f

th e re a so n s w h yn o a p p e a lab le is su e s e x ist m e e ts th e re q u ire m e n ts of the fi r s tpr ong of A nd ers . A s forthe s econd pr ong of A nd ers , w e h av e ind ep en d en tl yrev iew ed the re co rd a n d w e a g re e w ith c o u n s e l’ s c o m p re h e n s iv e a n a lysis a s to w h yn o a p p e a la b le is s u e e x is ts . T he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s anal y s i s of G uevar a- C ar i l l o’ s pr i orcr i m es , hi s ci r cumst ance s , and the goal s of s ent enci ng w as m or e than ade quat e. A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt a n d , in a se p a ra te or der , gr antcouns el ’ s m ot i on t o w i thdr aw pur s uantt o A nd ers .