2008 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 12-11-2008 

# U SA v . Leon 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 . 06-5214

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_2008

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 2008 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 . L e on" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 130. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/130NOT 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. 06- 5214

_______________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. AL BE RT L E ON, 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 f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( C r i m i nal N o. 05- C R - 485- 002) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le W ill iam W . C a ld w e ll Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

O ct ober1, 2008 B efore: F ISH E R , C H A G A R E S , and H A R D IM A N C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: D ece m ber11, 2008)

__________________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

__________________

C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udge.2

A l ber tL eon fi l ed a pro se appea l fr om hi s convi ct i on and s ent ence fordi s t r i but i on of cr ack c ocai ne and pos s es s i on of cr ack c ocai ne w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e. H i s couns el has m oved forperm i s s i on t o w i t hdr aw fr om r epr es ent at i on pur s uantt o A nder s v. C ali fo rnia, 38 6 U . S . 7 3 8 (19 6 7 ). F o r th e re aso n s tha t fo ll o w , w e w il l den yco u n sel’s A nder s m ot i on and or dernew couns el appoi nt ed t o fi l e a br i ef on Leon’ s behal f. 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 lyre c ite t he essenti al fact s. O n Sept ember11, 2006, L eon pl eade d gui l t y , pur s uantt o a pl ea a gr eement , t o one c o u n t o f d istrib u tin g c ra c k c o c a in e a n d p o ss e ss in g c ra c k c o c a in e w ith th e in ten t to di s t r i but e i t , al l i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) . T he agr eementpr ovi ded thatthe G overnm entw oul d r ecomm end the mi ni m um pos s i bl e per i od of i ncar cer at i on w i t hi n t he ra n g e g iv e n b yth e U .S . S e n ten c in g G u id e lin e s. T h e a g re e m e n t f u rth e r p ro v id e d th a t if the G o v ern m en t fail ed to m ak e su ch a re co m m en d ati o n , L eo n co u ld w ith d raw h is plea. It di d notbi nd t he D i s t r i ctC our tt o acc eptthe G overnm ent ’ s r ecomm endat i on. A tt he pl ea c ol l oquy , t he G overnm entr epr es ent ed thati tbel i eved the G ui del i nes r a n g e wo u l d b e 8 7 t o 1 0 8 mo n t h s . Th e Di s t r i c tJ u d g e t o l d Le o n th a t“ i t ’ s my u n d erstan d ing that if th e m inim u m g u ideline s en tenc e o f 8 7 m o n ths is no t w h at th e c o u rt deems t o be appr opr i at e, t hen y ou w oul d be perm i t t ed t o w i t hdr aw y ourgui l t ypl ea. ” The D istric t Ju d g e a lso sta ted : “I in d ica ted th a t if [ 8 7 m o n th s] is n o t th e se n ten c e , I w o u ld3

al l ow y ou t o w i t hdr aw y ourgui l t ypl ea a nd go t o t r i al . ” Leon pl eade d gui l t y , and the D i s t r i ctC our tent er ed the pl ea. O n D ece m ber20, 2006, t he D i s t r i ctC our thel d a s ent enci ng hear i ng. A tthe hear i ng, t he G overnm entar gued thatthe appl i cabl e G ui del i nes r ange w as not87 t o 108 m ont hs but100 t o 125 m ont hs . T hi s new cal cul at i on w as bas ed upon a pr i orconvi ct i on fordom es t i c as s aul tt hatt he U . S. Pr obat i on O ffi ce di s cover ed af t erthe dat e of the pl ea h e a rin g . L e o n a rg u e d th a t th e n e w ly -d isc o v e re d c o n v ictio n w a s n o t a “ c o n v ictio n ” a t all forG ui del i nes purpos es butr atherdet ent i on pendi ng extr adi t i on w i t h r egar d t o another m at t er . E xcl udi ng t hi s convi ct i on fr om the G ui del i nes cal cul at i on w oul d have br ought t he ad vis oryrange b ack d ow n to the G ov ernm ent’ s ear l i er es t i m at e of 8 7 to 108 m on ths. T he G overnm ents t at ed thati tw oul d notoppos e the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s s ent enci ng u sin g th e 1 0 0 -to -1 2 5 -m o n th s ra n g e , b u t itsu g g e ste d a llo w in g L e o n to c o m e b a c k a t a l at erdat e w i t h evi dence demonstr at i ng thatthe domest i c- abus e convi ct i on s houl d notbe cons i der ed and ther efor e thatt he 87- t o- 108- m ont hs r ange w as appr opr i at e. T he D i s t r i ct C our ti ndi cat ed thati tagr eed t o t hi s pr ocedur e. T he D i s t r i ctC our tthen i m pos ed a se n ten c e in c lu d in g a p riso n ter m o f 1 0 0 m o n th s. L e o n m a d e n o su b se q u e n t atte m p ts to demonstr at e thatt he domest i c- as s aul tconvi ct i on s houl d have be en exc l uded fr om the G ui del i nes cal cul at i on. L eon then fi l ed a pro se appea l . H i s couns el has pet i t i oned t o w i t hdr aw and fi l ed a s uppor t i ng A nder s br i ef.4 II. T he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 3231, and 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). D efe ns e couns el has fi l ed an A nder s br i ef a s s ert i ng thatno ar guabl ym er i t or i ous l egal i s s ues exi s tand thatw e s houl d al l ow hert o w i t hdr aw fr om the ca s e. L eon r ece i ved a copyof the A nder s br i ef a nd fi l ed a pro se br i ef i dent i fy i ng i s s ues he bel i eves have m er i t . T he Supr eme C our ti ns t ruct ed i n A nder s that“i f [thi s C our t ] fi nds anyof the l egal poi nt s ar guabl e on thei rm er i t s ( and ther efor e notfr i vol ous ) i tm us t , pr i ort o deci s i on, a f f o rd th e in d ig e n t th e a s s is ta n c e o f c o u n s e l to a rg u e th e a p p e a l.” 3 8 6 U .S . a t 7 4 4 . B ec au se w e f

ind an arg u ab lym erit o ri o u s leg al i ssu e, w e w il l r ejec t cou n sel’s A n d ers b rie f , g ra n t h e r re q u e st to w ith d ra w f ro m th e c a se , an d o rd e r n e w c o u n se l ap p o in ted to fi l e a br i ef i n s uppor tof Leon’ s appea l . U ni t ed St at es v. Y oul a, 241 F. 3d 296, 302 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( des cr i bi ng appr opr i at e pr ocedur e w hen C our tfi nds i s s ue of a r guabl e l egal m erit ). L eon ar gues t hathi s convi ct i on and s ent ence s houl d be vac at ed bec aus e the pl ea a g re e m e n t w a s b re a c h e d . W ith o u t d e c id in g th e iss u e , w e h o ld th a t ita rg u a b lyh a s m e rit and obs erve thatdefe ns e couns el di d notaddr es s i ti n herA nder s br i ef. A nal y zi ng t hi s i s s ue r equi r es , atthe thr es hol d, det erm i ni ng exac t l yw hatpr om i s es t he pl ea a gr eementcont ai ns . T he part i es exec ut ed a w r i t t en agr eementi n advanc e of the pl ea c ol l oquy . T he l aw i s cl ear , how ever , thata pl ea a gr eementencompas s es w hat ever5

w as “r eas onabl yunder s t ood by[the def endant ] w hen he e nt er ed hi s pl ea of gui l t y . ” U ni t ed St at es v. C rus co, 536 F. 2d 21, 27 ( 3d C i r . 1976) . T hati s , the agr eementm ay in c lu d e o b lig a tio n s n o t en u m e ra ted w ith in th e f o u r c o rn e rs o f

th e w ritten d o c u m e n t. T h is is e sp e c iallytru e , w e h a v e e x p lain e d , w h e n su c h o b lig a tio n s s tem f ro m a re a so n a b le under s t andi ng of comm ent s m ade bya di s t r i ctj udge dur i ng a pl ea c ol l oquy . I d. at24. H er e, i ts eems a r guabl e thatL eon under s t ood t he pl ea a gr eementt o r equi r e the D is tr ic t C o u rt to im p o s e a n 8 7 -m o n th p ri s o n te rm n o tw ith s ta n d in g th e G u id e lin e s . A l t ho ug h the w ri t t en ag reem ent does reci t e t hat i tdo es not bi nd the D i stri ctC ou rt , i tal so p ro v id e s th a t itm a yb e m o d if ied “ o n th e re c o rd in c o u rt.” A p p . 4 0 a (P lea A g re e m e n t ¶ 2 4 ), 5 0 a (P lea A g ree m en t ¶ 3 8 ). T h e D istri ct Ju d g e, spe ak ing o n the re co rd in co u rt dur i ng t he pl ea he ar i ng, s t at ed: “[I ] t ’ s m yunder s t andi ng thati f the mi ni m um G ui del i ne s ent ence of 87 m ont hs i s notw hatt he C our tdeems t o be appr opr i at e, then y ou w oul d be p e rm itte d to w ith d ra w y o u r g u ilty p le a .” S u p p . A p p 6 . T h e G o v e rn m e n t d id n o t o b je c t. See gene r al l yG ov’ t ’ s B r . at19 ( not i ng the G overnm ent“ac know l edges thatatthe t i m e of t he gui l t ypl ea pr ocee di ng, t he w r i t t en pl ea a gr eementw as or al l yamended. . . . ”) . L at er i n t he pl ea he ar i ng, w hen Leon sa i d he “w as t ol d t hatI w as goi ng t o get87 m onths , no m o re th a n 8 7 m o n th s,” th e D istric t Ju d g e sta ted : “W e ll, I sa id , I in d ica ted th a t if th a t is nott he s ent ence , I w oul d al l ow y ou t o w i t hdr aw y ourgui l t ypl ea a nd go t o t r i al . ” Supp. A pp. 9. A gai n, t he G overnm entdi d notobj ect . A r guabl y , thes e s t at ement s ( combi ned w i t h t he G overnm ent ’ s acqui es cenc e) m aybe r eas onabl yunder s t ood t o pr ovi de thatL eon6

coul d w i t hdr aw hi s pl ea i f the D i s t r i ctC our tul t i m at el yi m pos ed a pr i s on t erm gr eat er t han 87 m on t hs. T h e D istric t C o u rt’s im p o sitio n o f a 1 0 0 -m o n th p riso n ter m , the n , w o u ld c o n stitu te a br eac h of the agr eement . H ow ever , i ti s pos s i bl e thatL eon r at i fi ed a modi fi cat i on t o t he ag ree m en t w h en h e a g ree d to the u se o f th e 1 0 0 -t o -12 5 -m o n ths ran g e p en d ing d isco v ery of anydocument at i on t endi ng t o demonstr at e thatthe domest i c- as s aul tm att erdi d not r es ul ti n a “c onvi ct i on” forG ui del i nes cal cul at i on purpos es . See, e. g. , U ni t ed St at es v. G ilch rist, 1 3 0 F .3 d 1 1 3 1 , 1 1 3 4 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 7 ) (a n a ly z in g p lea a g re e m e n t u sin g c o n tra c tlaw p ri n ciples). I n anyevent , i f w e det erm i ned thatthe agr eementw as br eac hed ( and not su b seq u en tl yrati fied ), w e m igh t vac ate the sen tenc e a n d rem an d to the D istri ct C o u rt ei t hert o al l ow t he def

endantt o w i t hdr aw hi s gui l t ypl ea ort o i m pos e an 87- m ont h pr i s on t erm . See i d. at1136 ( hol di ng t hatpl ea a gr eementpr ovi di ng fors t i pul at ed s ent ence w as br eac hed, vaca t i ng convi ct i on and s ent ence , and r emandi ng t o di s t r i ctcour tt o al l ow w ith d raw al or to im p o se stipu lat ed sen tenc e). I ti s cl eart hatt he four - page “ A r gum ent ” s ect i on of the A nder s br i ef doe s noteven r ai s e ( m uch l es s di s cus s and expl ai n t he fr i vol ous nes s of) the i s s ue of w hetherthe pl ea agr eementw as m odi fi ed orbr eac hed. A nder s B r . at15- 18. I ndeed, as the G overnm ent poi nt s out , defe ns e couns el di d noteven obt ai n a tr ans cr i ptof the gui l t y - pl ea he ar i ng befor e fi l i ng t he A nder s br i ef. G ov’ t ’ s B r . at10 n. 2, 19 n. 3.7 III . W i t houtrul i ng on t he br eac h i s s ue, w e hol d t hati tar guabl yhas m er i t . T her efor e, i n acc or dance w i t h L ocal A ppel l at e R ul e 109. 2( a) , w e w i l l gr antcurr entcouns el ’ s m ot i on for l eave to w i t hd raw , and dir ectt he C l erk t o ap po i nt s ub st i tute coun sel , res t ore this case t o t he ca l endar , and fi x a s ubs equentbr i efi ng s chedul e.