2004 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
12-23-2004 

# U SA v . Al le n P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-2767

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" U SA v . Al le n " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 40. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/40NOT PRE CEDENT IAL IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT

_______________ No. 03-2767

________________ UNITED S TATES OF AMERI CA

v. AMY ALLEN,

Appellant

___________________
On A ppeal Fro m the U nited States D istrict Court For th e Ea stern D istrict of P enns ylvania (D.C. No. 02-cr-00166) Distri ct Judge: Honorable James T. Giles

_______________________________________ Submitte d Under Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

December 14, 2004 Be for e: N YG AA RD , RO SE NN and BE CK ER , Circuit Judges (Fil ed December 23, 2004)

_______________________

OPINION

_______________________ BE CK ER , Circuit

Judge.1 More specifi call y, Allen was convic ted of caus ing the us e of the mailin the

unauthori zed ordering of computer acc essori es, a des k and chair , cl othing, a saddle ba g, spurs, reins, and heaters (Count 4); two computer systems, computer accessories, clothin g, and jewe lry (Cou nt 5); clo thing, je we lry, and co mp uter dis ks (C oun t 6); a wash ing mac hine, com puter accesso ries, clothing, and dec orative items (C ount 7); computer acce ssori es, a fa csimil e machine, clothing, and fl ashing l ights (Count 8); and a comp uter system (Cou nt 10). She w as also con victed of ca using the transm ittal of a wire com mu nicatio n in the orde ring o f lightin g equ ipme nt.
2 In he r infor mal b rief, A llen alleg es ineffectiv e assista nce o f cou nsel. H ow ever, “ it is well-es tabli shed that

ineffective ass ist ance of counselclai ms are genera lly not ente rtained on a direc t appeal .” United Stat es v. Thomas , 389 F .3d 42 4, 429 (3d C ir. 2004 ); United Statesv. Headley , 923 F.2d 1079, 1083 (3d Cir. 1991). Rather, “t he proper ave nue for pursuing s uch clai ms is through a coll atera l procee ding in which t he factualbasis f

or the clai m may be develope d.” Id. ; United Stat es v. Theodoropoulos , 866 F.2d 587, 598 (3d Cir. 1989 ). 2 This is an appeal by

Amy Allen from a j udgment in a criminalcase fol lowing a trial by a jury

which convicted her of six co unts of m ail fraud and one co unt of w ire fraud. 1 All en wa s s ent enc ed t o five mo nths’ imp ri sonment , and f iv e month s of

home detent ion (All en has ser ved that sentence ), plus restitution in t he sum of $14,123. 52. All en’ s co uns el ha s file d a b rief in w hich he h as sta ted, inter alia , “This is an Anders brie f submitt ed in support of counsel ’s reque st t o withdraw due to hi s profess ional judgment t

hat the re are no grounds of merit for an appealby t

he Appellant , Amy Alle n.” After thorough examinati on of the re cord, we agre e with counselthat t here are no nonfrivol ous iss ues to r aise on appe al. Although Allen f iled a brief s igned by

her brot her Joel D. A llen, afte r thoro ugh exam ination of the record , we a re con strained to agre e w ith
co uns elth at

th er e are no n on- fr iv ol ous is su es fo r r ev ie w. 2 The short of it is that t

he evidence a gainst

Allen is overwhelming. It showed that3 We also n ote ou r view that, bec ause the issu es pre sented in the a ppea l lack leg al me rit,

they d o no t req uire the filing of a petit ion for wr it of c ertio rari w ith th e Su pre me Co urt. 3d C ir. LAR 109.2(b)(20 00). 3 Allen requ ested a nd ev entua lly received at her h om e pers onal ite ms o rdered off-c ontrac t – a computer, a desk with a hutch and a chair , a second c omputer, a print er, a he ater, and a
wa shin g m ach ine, a nd t hat s he d id n ot p erso nally p ay fo r an y of th e item s sh e rec eive d. Many of th es e i te ms we re re co ve re d f ro m he r h ome . Mo re ove r, whe n i t b ec ame kno wn th atth e Moun te d Uni t wa s be in g i nve st ig at ed b yth e Po li ce De par tme nt ’s IMPACT Divisi on, Alle n agreed t o “get ri d of” the compute r and washing machi ne she had ordered, and law enforcement offici als r ecovered t

wo computers that

Allen rec eived under the s cheme from the home of Alle n’s rel ative s in Cali fornia. As to her ar gument that s he was prejudi ced by ajoint tri al with a

co-defendant , Alle n never rai sed any object ion to having her case t ried together wit

h co-defendant

Evans, nor di d she move for
seve rance at any po int. Th is argu men t is palpa bly witho ut me rit. Our juri sprudence r equires that c ounsel in an Anders sit uation a dequately at

tempt to u nco ver the b est a rgu me nts for h is or h er cli ent. See U nited S tates v. M arvin , 211 F.3d 778 (3d Cir. 1999). We are satisfied that counsel has fulfi lled his Anders obl igati ons . The judgment of the District Court will be a ffirmed. 3