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 4-30-2009 

# U SA v . Ar thur D ' Am ario, III 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 . 08-4735

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 . Ar thur D ' Am ario, I I I " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1452. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1452CL D- 1 5 3 NOT 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 os . 08- 4735, 08- 4898 and 09- 1574

( cons ol i dat ed)

___________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. A R T H U R D ’A M A R IO , III ,

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 rth e D i s tr i c to f

N e w J e r s e y ( D . C . C r i m . N o. 06- cr - 00112) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Paul S. D i amond

____________________________________ Subm i t t ed forPoss i bl e Sum m aryA ct i on Pur s uantt o T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6

A pr i l 9, 2009 B efor e: R E N D E L L , H A R D I M A N and A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: A pr i l 30, 2009)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM T hes e cons ol i dat ed appe al s s t em from A ppel l antA r thurD ’ A m ar i o’ s s econd c o n v i c t i o n f

o rth r e a t e n i n g t o a s s a u l ta n d mu r d e ra f e d e r a l j u d g e , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U. S . C.2

§ 115( a) ( 1) ( B ) , forw hi ch he w as s ent ence d on M ar ch 26, 2007, t o ei ghty - fourm onths of i m pr i s onm ent . W hi l e hi s couns el ed di r ectappea l i n thatcas e has been pe ndi ng, D ’A m a ri o h a s b e s ie g e d th e D is tr ic t C o u rt a n d th is C o u rt w ith p ro s e m o tio n s a n d a p p e a ls . P re se n tlyb e f

o re u s a re D ’A m a rio ’s c o n so lid a ted p ro se a p p e a ls f ro m th re e se p a ra te o rde rs of the D istri ct C o u rtd en y ing o n e c o u n seled an d tw o p ro se R u le 33 m o ti o n s fo r a new tr i al . T he G overnm enthas as ked us t o s um m ar i l yaff i r m , and t o “r efus e t o docket a n ymo r e s u c h i mp r o p e rp r o s e mo t i o n s ” o rp r o s e a p p e a l s . F o rth e r e a s o n s th a tf o l l o w, w e w i l l sum m ari l yaffirm the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s orders , and den ythe G ov ernm ent’ s r equ est to lim it D ’A m a ri o ’s a p p e lla te ri g h ts . W e begi n w i th t he G overnm ent ’ s r eques tforthi s C our tt o pl ace a mora t or i um on the docke t i ng of D ’ A m ar i o’ s pr o s e fi l i ngs unl es s theyar e “f i l ed i n 07- 1955 [the docke t n u m b e r o f

th e d ire c t ap p e a l] b yc o u n se l.” A s w e h a v e p re v io u slysta ted in th e c iv il cont ext , “a pa t t ern of gr oundl es s and vexa t i ous l i t i gat i on w i l l j us t i fyan or derpr ohi bi t i ng fur therfi l i ngs w i thoutperm i s s i on of the court . ” C hi pps v. U . S. D i s tr i ctC our tforthe M i ddl e D i s tr i ctof Pa. , 882 F. 2d 72, 73 ( 3d C i r . 1989) . I n addi t i on, a D i s tr i ctC our thas the author i tyt o i s s ue l i m i t at i ons on pr o s e fi l i ngs s ubm i tt ed w hi l e the partyi s r epr es ent ed bycouns el . See U ni t ed St at es v. V ampi r e N at i on, 451 F. 3d 189, 206 n. 17 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( ci t i ng U ni t ed St at es v. E s s i g, 10 F. 3d 968, 973 ( 3d C i r . 1993) ( not i ng gener al rul e on ap p ea l r eg ard ing p ro se arg u m en ts m ad e b yco u n seled p arti es)). H ere , the D istri ct C o u rtE ach o rderhas m and at ed thatD ’A m ari o, “w ho i s r epresent ed b ycou nsel , shal l cease 1 and des i s tfr om fi l i ng anyfur therPr o Se M ot i ons . ” ( D i s t . C t . dkt#’ s 195, 207, 223, 242, 2 5 1 , 2 9 7 , 3 0 3 , a n d 3 0 4 .) 3 has ei ghtt i m es enj oi ned D ’ A m ar i o’ s pr o s e fi l i ngs , butt o no avai l . T o the ext entthatt he 1 D i s tr i ctC our tm us tt ake a ddi t i onal s t eps t o eff ectuat e i t s i nj unct i on, w e enc our age i tt o do s o. N onethel es s , w e r efr ai n fr om enj oi ni ng D ’ A m ar i o’ s abi l i tyt o appea l fr om or der s t hat the D istri ct C o u rten ters no tw ith stan d ing it s “c ea se a n d d esist” m an d ate, an d there fo re d e n yth e G o v e rn m e n t’ s re q u e s t. I n di s pos i ng of thes e appe al s , w e r emi nd D ’ A m ar i o thatther e i s no cons t i tut i onal ri g h t to h yb ri d re p re s e n ta tio n . S e e M c K a s k le v . W ig g in s , 4 6 5 U .S . 1 6 8 , 1 8 3 (1 9 8 4 ). T h u s , a d is tr ic t c o u rt is n o t o b lig a te d to c o n s id e r p ro s e m o tio n s b yre p re s e n te d litig a n ts . F u rth e r, ch a llen g e s to c o n v ictio n s p u rsu e d w h ile a d ire c t ap p e a l is p e n d in g a re g e n e ra lly di s favor ed as a mat t erof j udi ci al economy . See, e. g. , K apr al v. U ni t ed St at es , 166 F. 3d 565, 570 ( 3d C i r . 1999) ( comm ence m entof an a ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 2255 w hi l e di r ect a p p e a l is p e n d in g is g e n e ra llyin a p p ro p ria te) . A s w e h a v e p re v io u slye x p lain e d to D ’A m ario, th is i s so b ec au se th e re su lt s o n d ir ec t app ea l m ayn u ll ifya d istri ct co u rt ’s e f f o rt s in a d ju d ic a tin g a c o lla te ra l a tta c k . T h e re b e in g n o su b sta n tial q u e stio n p re se n ted b yD ’A m a rio ’s a p p e a ls, w e w ill s um m ar i l yaff

i r m the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or der s . See LA R 27. 4; I . O . P. 10. 6. T he G overnm ent ’ s r eques tthatthi s C our tr efus e t o docketfutur e pr o s e mot i ons orappea l s by D ’A m a rio , w h ile h e is s im u ltan e o u slyre p re se n ted b yc o u n se l, i s d e n ied w ith o u t4

pr ej udi ce. D ’ A m ar i o’ s pendi ng m ot i on forexpedi t i ous adj udi cat i on of hi s appea l s , and the G overnm ent ’ s m ot i on t o s um m ar i l ydi s m i s s , ar e deni ed as m oot . D ’ A m ar i o’ s pendi ng m o tio n s f

o r im m e d iate re lea se a n d /o r b a il are d e n ied , an d w e re m in d h im th a t “c o u n se l is re sp o n sib le f

o r th e d e c isio n [ ] . . . to f ile a m o tio n f

o r b a il p e n d in g th e o u tco m e o f [ h is d ir e c t a p p e a l] .” U n ite d S ta te s v . D ’A m a ri o , 2 6 8 F . A p p ’x 1 7 9 , 1 8 1 n .1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). F in a lly , D ’A m a rio ’s m o tio n s f o r su m m a ryre v e rsa l, rec u sa l an d p ro d u c tio n o f tra n sc rip ts ar e deni ed.