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 12-22-2009 

# U SA v . Mich a el Hi ll 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 . 09-1907

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 . Mich a el Hi ll " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 54. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/54NOT 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- 1907 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. M I CH AEL H I LL, A p p e l l a n t 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 N o. 06- cr - 00005- 001) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e K i m R . G i bs on Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

D ece m ber16, 2009 B efore: F ISH E R , H A R D IM A N , and V A N A N T W E R P E N , C i rcui tJudg es. ( Fi l ed: D ece m ber22, 2009)

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT V A N A N T W E R P E N , C i r cui tJudge . A ppel l ant - defe ndantM i chae l H i l l ’ s C ouns el has fi l ed a mot i on t o w i thdr aw pur s uantt o A n d e rs v . C a lif o rn ia , 386 U . S. 738 ( 1967) . T he U ni t ed St at es has fi l ed a br i ef2

i n sup po rtof C ou nsel ’s m oti on . A l tho ug h C ou nsel ’s A nd ers b rie f is s lig h tlyin su f

f icie n t, becau se th is C o u rt is sa tisf ied th e re a re n o n o n -f

riv o lo u s is su e s f

o r d ire c t ap p e a l, w e w ill g ra n t C o u n s e l’ s m o tio n to w ith d ra w a n d d is m is s th e a p p e a l. I. B ec au se w e w ri te so lel yfo r th e p arti es, w e w il l add ress o n lytho se f ac ts ne ce ssary to o u r o p in io n . O n D e c e m b e r 2 5 , 2 0 0 5 , H ill e sc a p e d f ro m th e F e d e ra l C o rre c tio n a l C o m p lex in L or ett o, Penns y l vani a w her e he w as s ervi ng a 234 mont h s ent ence fora drug cons pi r acy in v o lv in g c o c a in e b a se . H ill w a s d e sig n a ted to a f e d e ra l p riso n c a m p a t L o re tto , w h ich is a m in im u m s e c u ri ty ca m p w ith n o p e ri m e te r f e n c in g . A f te r H ill w a s c a p tu re d in M a rc h 2 0 0 8 , h e p le d g u ilty to v io la tin g 1 8 U .S .C . § 751( a) , w hi ch makes i ta cr i m e t o es cape fr om governm entcus t ody . I n the Pr es ent ence R epo rtprepared bythe U . S . P robat i on O ffi ce, H i l l ’s off ense w as cal culat ed at a base l e v e l o f 1 3 , w i th a tw o - p o i n td o w n w a r d a d j u s t m e n tb e c a u s e h e a c c e p t e d r e s p o n s i b i l i t y. U .S . S ENT ENC ING G UI DEL INES M AN UA L§ 3E 1. 1( a) ( 2008) . T he advi s orygui del i ne r ange f o r H ill ’s c o n d u c t, i n lig h t o f h is c rim in a l h isto ryc a teg o ryo f L e v e l III, w a s tw e lv e to eigh teen m o n ths. Prior to se n tenc ing , H il l’ s co u n sel fil ed a M o ti o n fo r C o n cu rren t T erm of I m pr i s onm ent , w hi ch w as deni ed. O n M ar ch 23, 2009, a tr i al courts ent ence d H i l l t o a t erm of tw el ve- m onths i m pr i s onm ent , t o run cons ecut i vel yt o H i l l ’ s undi s char ged t erm of i m pr i s onm ent , and thr ee- y ear s s upervi s ed r el eas e t o run concurr ent l yw i th H i l l ’ s other3

s upervi s ed r el eas e t erm . T hi s s ent ence w as atthe l ow end of the advi s orygui del i ne r ange o f tw e lv e to e ig h te e n m o n th s . II. T he D i s tr i ctC our thad s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3231. T h is C o u rth as a p p ell ate jurisdicti o n u n d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 an d 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 7 4 2 (a). T hi s C our texer ci s es pl enaryr evi ew overan A nd ers m o tio n . S e e P e n so n v . O h io , 48 8 U. S. 7 5 , 8 2 -83 n . 6 (19 8 8 ). O u r i n q u iryu n d er A nd ers i s tw ofol d. Fi r s t , w e mustcons i derw hethercouns el ad eq u atelyfu lfi ll ed it s o b li g ati o n s u n d er T h ir d C ir cu itL o ca l A p p ell ate R u le 10 9 . 2 (a). U n itedS ta tes v . Y

o u la , 241 F. 3d 296, 300 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . R egar di ng thi s i s s ue, couns el m u st s a tisf

yu s th a t h e o r sh e (1 ) th o ro u g h lysc o u re d th e re c o rd in se a rc h o f a p p e a lab le issue s, (2) ide n ti fied an yissue s arg u ab lysu p p o rt ing the a p p ea l, ev en tho u g h theyare f ri v o lo u s , a n d (3 ) e x p la in e d to u s w h yth e ya re f ri v o lo u s . U

ni t ed Stat es v. C ol em an , 575 F. 3d 316, 319 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( ci t i ng U n itedS ta tes v . M

a rv in , 2 1 1 F . 3 d 7 7 8 , 7 8 0 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 )). S e c o n d , w e m u st c o n sid e r w h e th e r a n in d e p e n d e n t re v iew o f th e re c o rd p re se n ts a n yn o n -f

ri v o lo u s is s u e s . Y

o u la , 241 F. 3d at300. I f the A nd ers br i ef a ppear s adequa t e on i t s fac e, w e r evi ew onl ythe port i ons of the r ecor d i dent i fi ed i n the A nd ers br i ef a nd any i s s ues r ai s ed byan appe l l anti n a pr o s e b ri e f. I d. a t 3 0 1 . B u t, “e x c e p t in th o se c a se s in w hi ch fr i vol ous nes s i s pat ent , w e w i l l r ej ectbr i efs . . . i n w hi ch couns el ar gue [s i c] the4

p u rp o rt e d ly f

ri v o lo u s is s u e s a g g re s s iv e ly w ith o u t e x p la in in g th e f a u lts in th e a rg u m e n ts .” U ni t ed Stat es v. Ma rv in , 2 1 1 F .3 d 7 7 8 , 7 8 1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). III . C ou nsel ’s A nd ers br i ef i s t echni cal l yi ns uffi ci ent . I n hi s br i ef, C ouns el i dent i fi es thr ee pot ent i al i s s ues forappea l , al l r el at i ng t o H i l l ’ s s ent ence : ( 1) thatH i l l i s ent i t l ed t o a four - poi ntdow nw ar d departur e pur s uantt o the fe der al s ent enci ng gui del i nes fores capi ng fr om a non- s ecur e comm uni tycorr ect i on cent er , comm uni tytr eatm entcent er , orhal fw ay hous e; ( 2) thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n r efus i ng t o run H i l l ’ s s ent ence c o n c u rre n t to h is u n d isc h a rg e d d ru g se n ten c e ; an d (3 ) th a t th e D istric t C o u rt f a iled to cons i derthe def

endant ’ s m ent al and emot i onal s t at e i n s ent enci ng. A l though C ouns el e x a m in e s e a c h p o ten tial iss u e w ith c a re , an d c ites c o n tro lli n g law , C o u n se l f a ils to ex p lai n to u s the fa u lt s in the se a rgu m en ts, as re q u ir ed u n d er M a r v in . 2 1 1 F .3 d a t 7 8 1 . M or eover , C ouns el onl yaddr es s ed H i l l ’ s pot ent i al s ent enci ng cl ai m s . W hen a defe ndantpl eads gui l ty , as H i l l di d, ther e ar e thr ee pot ent i al i s s ues open forappea l : t he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s j ur i s di ct i on, the val i di tyof the gui l typl ea, and the l egal i tyof the s e n te n c e . See U

ni t ed Stat es v. B r oce , 48 8 U . S . 56 3, 56 9 (198 9). C ou nsel did not address juri sd ict ion o r th e a d eq u ac yo f H il l’ s p lea. N o tably , C o u n sel n ee d n o t i n clud e e v ery pos s i bl e cl ai m of err ori n an A nd ers br i ef, butthe br i ef mustexude s uffi ci enti ndi ci a that C o u n s e l m a d e a re a s o n e d d e c is io n n o t to ra is e th e is s u e s o m itte d . M a rv in , 211 F. 3d at 780. H er e, al though H i l l di d notfi l e a pro se br i ef, he w r ot e hi s C ouns el a l ett erbr i ngi ng5

up each o f t he argu m ents add res sed i n C ou nsel ’s A nd ers b ri e f. Ap p . at43- 44. T her efor e, w e ar e notconfi dentthatC ouns el om i t t ed the otherappea l abl e i s s ues bas ed on a re a so n e d b e lief

th e ylac k m e rit; rath e r, ita p p e a rs to u s th a t C o u n se l m e re lyf ra m e d h is a rg u m e n ts to re sp o n d to th e iss u e s th e d e f e n d a n t sp e c if

ica llyin d ica ted h e in ten d e d to a p p e a l. I V. W hil e C ou nsel ’s A nd ers br i ef i s i nadequa t e, and no pr o s e b rie f w a s f iled , w e w ill n o t app o int ne w co u n sel as w e d o n o t nee d fu rth er a ssist an ce ; th e issu es a re s tr a ig h tf o rw a rd a n d e a s ily re s o lv a b le o n th e re c o rd b e f o re u s . S e e C o le m a n , 575 F. 3d at 3 2 1 (n o tin g th a t in th o se c a se s w h e n th e C o u rt c o n c lu d e s th e a p p e a l lac k s m e rit, “ w e w ill notappoi ntnew couns el even i f an A nd ers br i ef i s i ns uffi ci ent . ”) . W e w i l l l i m i tour ind ep en d en t r ev iew to the rec o rd, i n li g h t of H il l’ s g u il typ lea, t o the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ju ri s d ic tio n , th e v a lid ity o f th e p le a , a n d th e le g a lity o f th e s e n te n c e . H i l l pl ed gui l tyt o one countof 18 U . S. C . § 751( a) . T he D i s tr i ctC our tpl ai nl yhas j uri sdi ct i on ov er this off ense un der 18 U . S . C . § 3 23 1, as H i l l ’s cri m e w as an of fense 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 . Th e r e f o r e , Hi l l c a n r a i s e n o n o n - f r i v o l o u s c l a i ms w ith re s p e c t to ju ri s d ic tio n . T he r ecor d i ndi cat es both t hatthe D i s tr i ctC our tcol l oqui ed H i l l pr i ort o acc ept i ng h is plea, i n k ee p ing w ith the re q u ir em en ts of F ed era l R u le of

C ri m inal P roc ed u re 1 1 (b),6

and thatH i l l had no i nt ent i on of appe al l i ng the s uffi ci encyof thatcol l oquy . T her efor e, H i l l can r ai s e no non- fr i vol ous i s s ue w i th r es pectt o hi s pl ea. F u r th e r mo r e , Co u n s e l p r e d i c t s Hi l l wi l l a p p e a l h i s s e n t e n c e . T h i s Co u r tr e v i e ws the over al l s ent ence forabus e of di s cr et i on byengagi ng i n a pr ocedur al and s ubs t ant i ve re v ie w o f

th e s e n te n c e . See U

ni t ed Stat es v. Tom ko , 5 6 2 F . 3 d 5 5 8 , 5 6 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). Pr ocedur al l y , the D i s tr i ctC our tm us t( 1) acc ur at el ycal cul at e the appl i cabl e s ent enci ng g u idelines ran g e; (2) f

o rm all yrule o n the m o ti o n s o f b o th p arti es a n d stat e o n the re co rd w hetherthe courti s gr ant i ng a depa r tur e and how thatdepartur e af fec t s the gui del i nes ra n g e ; an d (3 ) c o n sid e r a ll th e f a c to rs u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ) a n d a d e q u a telye x p lain the chos en s ent ence i n a mannerthatal l ow s form eani ngful appel l at e courtr evi ew of the re a s o n a b le n e s s o f

th e s e n te n c e . See G al lv. U ni t ed Stat es , 5 5 2 U . S . 3 8 , 4 9 -50 (20 0 7 ); 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 ). If the D istri ct C o u rt ’s pr ocedur e i s w i thouterr or , then w e cons i derthe s ubs t ant i ve r eas onabl enes s of the s e n te n c e b a s e d o n th e to ta lity o f th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s . Tom ko , 562 F. 3d at567 . I ti s cl ear fr om the r ecor d t hatthe D i s tr i ctC our tfol l ow ed the pr ocedur al gui del i nes and gave m eani ngful cons i der at i on t o t he r el evant§ 3553( a) fac t or s . M or eover , the C our tdi d not a b u s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n b yi mp o s i n g a twe l v e - mo n th c o n s e c u t i v e s e n t e n c e . T h u s , we c o n c lu d e th e s e n te n c e w a s le g a l a n d re a s o n a b le . C o u n sel co n tend s tha t H il l m ayap p ea l th e se n tenc e a rgu ing h e is en ti tl ed to a f o u rpoi ntdow nw ar d departur e. I f a de fenda ntes cape d fr om the “non- s ecur e cus t odyof a7

comm uni tycorr ect i ons cent er , comm uni tytr eatm entcent er , hal fw ayhous e, ors i m i l ar fac i l i ty , ” he i s ent i t l ed t o a four - poi ntdow nw ar d departur e underthe Sent enci ng G u id e lin e s . U .S . S ENT ENC ING G UI DEL INES M AN UA L§ 2P1. 1( b) ( 3) . W e agr ee w i th the governm entand C ouns el thatther e i s no fac tual bas i s forchar act er i zi ng the Feder al Pr i s on C amp adj ace ntt o t he Feder al C orr ect i ons I ns t i tut i on atL or ett o, the mi ni m um sec u ri tyfa cil ityfro m w h ich H il l esca p ed , as so m ethin g sim il ar to a co m m u n ityce n ter. See U ni t ed Stat es v. Hi l l

s tr om , 837 F. Supp. 1324, 1339 ( M . D . Pa. 1993) ( fi ndi ng the Feder al Pr i s on C amp atA l l enw ood, a l ow erl evel Feder al Pr i s on C amp t han Lore t t o, di s s i m i l art o a comm uni tycorr ect i on fac i l i tyforthe purpos es of the s ame gui del i nes pr ovi s i on) ) . T her efor e, w e fi nd thatH i l l i s unabl e t o m ake a non- fr i vol ous appea l bas ed o n th e a rg u m e n t th a t L o re tto sh o u ld b e c h a ra c ter ize d a s s im ilar to a c o m m u n ity c o rr e c tio n s f

a c ility f o r s e n te n c in g p u rp o s e s . Si m i l ar l y , H i l l cannotpr es enta non- fr i vol ous cl ai m thatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed by r efus i ng t o run hi s tw el ve- m onth s ent ence concurr ent l yw i th the r emai nderof hi s pr i or s ent ence . A D i s tr i ctJ udge has di s cr et i on t o i m pos e a t erm of i m pr i s onm entei ther cons ecut i vel yorconcurr ent l yon a def endantw ho i s al r eadys ubj ectt o an undi s char ged term o f im p ri so n m en t, u p o n co n side rati o n o f th e f ac tors set fo rth in 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 (a). 18 U . S. C . § 3584( a) , ( b) . I ti s cl eart o us fr om the r ecor d thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tgave m eaningfu l con si derat i on t o the r el evan t§ 3 55 3(a) fact ors before decidi ng t o im po se8

H ill ’s s e n ten c e c o n se c u tiv e ly . T h u s, H ill is u n a b le to m a k e a n o n -f riv o lo u s c laim o n th is is s u e . C o u n sel p red ict s H il l w o u ld ap p ea l his sen tenc e c lai m ing that the D istri ct C o u rt e rre d b yn o t co n sid e rin g w h e th e r th e d e f e n d a n t d e se rv e d a d o w n w a rd d e p a rtu re d u e to d e f e n d a n t’ s m e n ta l a n d e m o tio n a l s ta te . U .S . S ENT ENC ING G UI DEL INES M AN UA L§ 5H 1. 3. N ei therH i l l norhi s att orneyas s ert ed t o the D i s tr i ctC our tthatH i l l m aybe e n t i t l e d t o a d o wn wa r d d e p a r tu r e o n th a tb a s i s , a n d a r g u me n t s a s s e r t e d f o rth e f i r s tt i me on appea l ar e dee m ed w ai ved and unr evi ew abl e bythi s C our t , abs entexce pt i onal c ir c u m s ta n c e s w h ic h d o n o t e x is t h e re . G ov’tof Vir gin I slan ds v. R osa , 399 F. 3d 283, 2 9 1 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ); B r ow n v. P hi l l i p Mor r is I

nc. , 2 5 0 F . 3 d 7 8 9 , 7 9 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). A cc o rdin g to the C o u n sel’s brief , h e c o n side red , b u t dec ided ag ains t m o v ing fo r a d o w n w ard d ep arture d u e to H il l’ s m en tal o r em o ti o n al st ate. H e n o ted, an d the re co rd confi r m s , thatH i l l has no hi s t oryof m ent al oremot i onal condi t i ons , and ther e i s no ref ere n ce to an yem o ti o n al or m en tal co n d it ion s in the p rese n tenc ing rep o rt . M o reo v er, w h e n in v ited , H ill a c c e p ted th e o p p o rtu n ityto tell th e C o u rt w h a t h e w a n ted th e C o u rt to know , buthe di d notas k fora dow nw ar d departur e t o r efl ectanym ent al oremot i onal c o n d itio n s f

ro m w h ic h h e s u f

f e re d . App. a t 2 6 -3 0 . W a iv e rs a re u n re v iew a b le b e c a u se it i s p re s u m e d th e yw e re th e re s u lt o f ta c tic a l c h o ic e s , a s th is w a s . R o s a , 3 9 9 F . 3 d a t2 9 0 . As th e d e f e n d a n t n e v e r a d v a n c e d th e iss u e o f a d e p a rtu re f

o r m e n tal o r e m o tio n a l issu e s to th e D is tr ic t C o u rt , th e is s u e is w a iv e d a n d u n re v ie w a b le o n a p p e a l. Id . T hus , w e conc l ude9

H i l l has no non- fr i vol ous cl ai m forappea l due t o the l ack of cons i der at i on of hi s m ent al a n d e m o tio n a l s ta te b e f o re s e n te n c in g . V. A l tho ug h w e con cl ud e t hat C ou nsel ’s A nd ers b rie f is te c h n ica llyin su f

f icie n t, beca us e w e fi nd thatH i l l ’ s appea l pr es ent s no m er i t or i ous ar gum ent s , w e w i l l gr ant C o u n se l’s m o tio n to w ith d ra w a n d d ism iss H ill ’s a p p e a l.