2005 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 11-15-2005 

# U SA v . L uc i ano 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 . 02-2920

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght 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 nova 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 2005 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 nova 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 l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . Luc i a no " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 230. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/230NOT 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. 02- 2920 UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

v. RO S AL I L UC I ANO,

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 E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia (D . C . C ri m inal N o . 0 1 -cr-00 3 0 5 ) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J . C ur t i s J oyner

____________ Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

O ct ober21, 2005 B efore: S C IR IC A , C hief J ud ge, V A N A N T W E R P E N and A L D ISE R T , C i rcui tJudg es. ( Fi l ed: N ovember15, 2005) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udge C ouns el forA ppel l antR os al i L uci ano ( “Luci ano”) has fi l ed a mot i on t o w i t hdr aw fr om t hi s cas e and ha s s ubm i t t ed a br i ef pur s uantt o A nder s v. C al i forni a, 386 U . S. 738

### 2

( 1967) , s t at i ng t hatno nonfr i vol ous i s s ues exi s tforappea l . B eca us e Luci ano has not r e q u e s t e d r e - s e n t e n c i n g u n d e rUni t e d St a t e s v . Boo k e r , - - - U. S. - - - , 1 2 5 S. Ct . 7 3 8 , 1 6 0 L. E d. 2d 621 ( 2005) , w e w i l l aff i r m t he j udgm entof convi ct i on and s ent ence and gr ant Co u n s e l ’ s mo t i o n t o wi t h d r a w. I. B eca us e w e w r i t e onl yfort he part i es , w ho ar e fa m i l i arw i t h t he fa ct s , pr ocedur al hi s t or yand cont ent i ons pr es ent ed, w e w i l l notr eci t e them exceptas nece s s aryt o t he d is c u s s io n . O n O c to b e r 3 , 2 0 0 1 , L u c ian o p led g u iltyto p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to d istrib u te m or e than 100 gr ams of her oi n i n a pr ot ect ed zone , 18 U . S. C . § 860. O n J ul y1, 2002, s he w as s ent ence d pur s uantt o t he Sent enci ng G ui del i nes t o a t erm of i m pr i s onm entof 90 m o n ths f o ll o w ed b yeigh t y ea rs of su p erv ised release . T h e D istri ct C o u rtd id n o t dep art f ro m th e a p p lic a b le G u id e lin e s ra n g e . T her eaf t er , L uci ano fi l ed a pro se not i ce of appea l . O n February14, 2002, L u c ian o ’s c o u n se l f

iled th is A n d e rs b rie f

a n d a m o tio n to w ith d ra w . L u c ian o w a s s e n t a copyof both t he mot i on and the br i ef a nd w as gi ven the oppor tuni t yt o r es pond pro se . She has notfi l ed a r es pons e. B yor derdat ed M ar ch 30, 2005, t hi s C our tal s o aff or ded L uci ano an opportuni t yt o chal l enge he rs ent ence underB ookeri n a s epar at e l et t ert o t he C o u rt. N o su c h lette r h a s b e e n f iled w ith th is C o u rt.

II.

### 3

W hen ana l y zi ng A nder s br i efs , w e as k t w o ques t i ons : “( 1) w hethercouns el adequa t el yful fi l l ed the rul e’ s r equi r ement s ; and ( 2) w hetheran 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. Y oul a, 241 F. 3d 296, 300 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . A n at t or neym us tdemonst r at e both t hathe has t hor oughl yexami ned the re c o rd f o r a p p e a lab le is su e s a n d th a t an yra isa b le is su e s a re f riv o lo u s. Id . In m a k in g th is s how i ng, “[c ] ouns el need notr ai s e and r ej ecteverypos s i bl e cl ai m . ” I d. C ouns el needs o n lyto sa tisf

yth 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 b yth e S u p re m e C o u rt in A n d e rs . Id . H e re , C o u n se l h a s re f

e rre d th is C o u rt to th e p o rtio n s o f th e re c o rd th a t ar g u a b ly pr es entnon- fr i vol ous i s s ues and has addr es s ed ( 1) w hethert he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on t o acc eptL uci ano’ s gui l t ypl ea, ( 2) w hetherL uci ano’ s gui l t ypl ea w as val i d, and ( 3) w hethert he D i s t r i ctC our ti m pos ed a l egal s ent ence . C ouns el concl uded, and the G o v e rn m e n t a g re e s , th a t 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 a p p e a l. U pon r evi ew , w e agr ee w i t h t he G overnm entt hatC ouns el has conduct ed a cons ci ent i ous exami nat i on of the i s s ues and thatno nonfr i vol ous i s s ues exi s tw i t h r es pect t o ei t hert he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s j ur i s di ct i on ort he val i di t yof Luci ano’ s gui l t ypl ea. W e do, how ever , concl ude thata nonfr i vol ous i s s ue exi s t s w i t h r es pectt o s ent enci ng. C ou nsel ’s A nd ers bri ef ad vis es this C ou rtas fol l ow s: Th e d e f e n d a n twa s s e n t e n c e d o n J u l y 22 , 2 0 0 2 [ s i c ] p r i o rt o t h e S u p r e me C o u rt ’s de cisi o n in U n it ed S tat es v. B o o k er a n d U n it ed S tat es v . F an F an [sic], 543 U . S. ____ ( 2005) . T hes e deci s i ons have not been appl i ed r etr oact i vel yas of y et . H o w ever , nei t herof thes e dec i s i ons , ort he dec i s i on i n B l akel yv.

### 4

W ash ing ton , 5 4 2 U . S . ____ (20 0 4 ) w o u ld aid th e d ef en d an t. In th e c ase at ba r, t he de f e n d ant ’ s s ent ence w as bel ow t he s t atut or ym axi m um , and i ndeed, bel ow t he mandat or ys ent ence had an 851 not i ce be en fi l ed. T her e w er e no fi ndi ngs b yth e C o u rt th a t w o u ld h a v e a f f e c ted h e r se n ten c e th a t w e re se t f o rth s peci fi cal l yi n the pl ea a gr eement . T hus , i ti s cl eart hathers ent ence w as law f u l. C o u n sel’s brief

w as f il ed o n F eb rua ry1 4 , 2 0 0 4 , tw o m o n ths b ef o re this C o u rt ’s d ec isi o n in U n it ed S tat es v . D av is, 4 0 7 F . 3 d 1 6 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). In D av is, this C o u rt adopt ed a ge ner al pol i cyof vac at i ng s ent ence s ent er ed pur s uantt o pr e- B ookerl aw . See i d. at165. W e not ed that“[w ] e w oul d be us urpi ng t he di s cr et i onarypow ergr ant ed t o t he di s t r i ctcour t s byB ookeri f w e w er e t o as s um e thatt he di s t r i ctcour tw oul d have gi ven [def endant ] t he s ame se nt ence pos t - B ooker . ” I d. ( ci t i ng U ni t ed St at es v. O l i ver , 397 F. 3d 3 6 9 , 3 8 0 n .3 (6 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 )) (m o d if ica tio n s in o rig in a l). A c c o rd in g ly , C o u n se l’s b rie f is i ncorr ectt hatno nonfr i vol ous i s s ues exi s tw i t h r es pectt o s ent enci ng. T hi s pol i cy , how ever , onl yappl i es w hen a de fenda ntaff i r m at i vel yr eques t s r es ent enci ng underB ooker . See i d. at166 ( “A ppel l ant s have be en di r ect ed t o s t at e w hether t heyw i s h t o chal l enge thei rs ent ence s underB ooker . Fort hos e w ho do not , w e cons i der th e a p p e a l o n th e m e rits.”) . T h is C o u rt w ill n o t im p o se re -se n ten c in g , w h ich c o u ld re su lt i n a gr eat ers ent ence , on a def endantw ho does notr eques ti t . H er e, L uci ano has not r eques t ed a r emand i n acc or dance w i t h ourC our tpol i cy , and, acc or di ngl y , w e w i l l not r emand t hi s cas e t o t he D i s t r i ctC our tforr e- s ent enci ng. W e w i l l t her efor e gr ant Co u n s e l ’ s mo t i o n t o wi t h d r a w. III .

### 5

W e have cons i der ed al l of the ar gum ent s r ai s ed bythe part i es and conc l ude thatno f u rt h e r d is c u s s io n is n e c e s s a ry. W e w ill a f f ir m th e ju d g m e n t o f

c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e . T he mot i on t o w i t hdr aw w i l l be gr ant ed.