2006 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 4-26-2006 

# U SA v . C l ark 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 . 05-2201

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_2006

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 2006 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 . C l ark " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1216. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/1216NOT 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. 05- 2201 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. ANT OI NE CL AR K, A ppel l ant APP EAL F ROM THE UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT C OURT F O R T H E W E S T E R N D IS T R IC T O F P E N N S Y L V A N IA

D . C . C r i m . 04- cr - 00168 D i stri ctJudg e: T he H on orabl e D on et t a W . A m brose Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ar ch 30, 2006 B efore: M cK E E , B A R R Y and V A N A N T W E R P E N , C i rcui tJudg es

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: A pr i l 26, 2006)

OP I NI ON

B A R R Y , C i r cui tJ udge A p p e llan t A n to in e C lar k a p p e a ls th e se n ten c e im p o se d o n h is p lea o f g u ilty p u rs u a n t to a p le a a g re e m e n t. W e w ill d is m is s th e a p p e a l f o r l a c k o f

ju ri s d ic tio n .T h e p o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to d e liv e r c h a rg e w a s la te r r e d u c e d to s im p le p o s s e s s io n , a 1 m isde m ea n o r. 2 I. P i t t s b u r g h Ho u s i n g Au th o r i typ o l i c e o f f i c e r s a rr e s t e d Cl a r k o n M a y5 , 2 0 0 4 . He w as char ged w i th aggr avat ed as s aul t , r es i s t i ng arr es t , r eckl es s l yendange r i ng another p e r s o n , v i o l a t i o n o f

th e Un i f o r m F i r e a r ms Ac t , a n d p o s s e s s i o n wi th i n t e n tt o d e l i v e r . He 1 w a s la ter c h a rg e d in f

e d e ra l co u rt w ith p o ss e ss io n o f a f ire a rm b ya c o n v icte d f

e lo n , in v iolati o n o f 1 8 U . S . C . § 9 2 2 (g) a n d 9 2 4 (a)(2). C l ark’ s coun sel and an A ssi st ant U nit ed S t at es A t t orney(“A U S A ”) m ett o d i scuss a pl ea a gr eement . Subse quent l y , couns el s enta l ett erdat ed D ece m ber20, 2004 t o the A U S A , w h ich p ro v id e d in p e rtin e n t p a rt: We me tp r e v i o u s l ya n d d i s c u s s e d th e a p p l i c a b l e s e n t e n c i n g g u i d e l i n e s . At thatt i m e, y ou i ndi cat ed thaty ou m ayfor go s eeki ng a 2 poi ntenhanc ement forR eckl es s nes s D ur i ng Fl i ght( U SSG 3C 1. 2. ) Y ou di d noti ndi cat ed [s i c] th a tth e G o v e r n m e n tw o u l d s e e k a n y o th e re n h a n c e m e n t s . A c c o r d i n g l y, ki ndl ys etfor th w hetherthe G overnm entdoes i nt end t o s eek a n enh ancem ent for R eckles sness. (S A 1 5 .) C o u n s e l r e c e iv e d n o re p ly. O n J anuary27, 2005, C l ark pl ed gui l ty . T he pl ea a gr eementm ade no ment i on of anypr om i s e bythe governm entnott o s eek one orm or e s ent enci ng enhanc ement s . I tdi d, h o we v e r , i n c l u d e a c l a u s e wh e r e b yCl a r k wa i v e d h i s r i g h tt o a p p e a l u n l e s s o n e o f two exce pt i ons , nei therappl i cabl e her e, w as m et . T her eaf t er , a pr es ent ence i nves t i gat i on report(“PS R ”) w as prepared. T he P S R i ncluded a fou r- l evel i ncrease t o C l ark’ s baseCl a r k p o i n t e d th e l o a d e d we a p o n a tth e p o l i c e wh e n th e ya t t e mp t e d t o a rr e s th i m. 2 O n appea l , “[Cl ark] does notchal l enge the fa ctual bas i s of the pl ea orw hetherthe 3 under l y i ng conductw as s uffi ci entt o s uppor tthe G overnm ents eeki ng a fourl evel incre ase p u rsua n t t o [U . S . S . G . § ] 2K 2 . 1 (b)(5 ). ” (A p p ell an t’ s B r. at 9.) M o reo v er, C l ark’ s couns el “s t i pul at es thathe di d nots peci fi cal l ydi s cus s the appl i cabi l i tyof [§] 2K 2. 1( b) ( 5) and thati tw as notdi s cus s ed on oroff the r ecor d on J anuary27, 2005. ” (I d. a t 1 0 .) 3 o ff en se lev el pu rsua n t t o U . S . S . G . § 2 K 2 . 1 (b)(5 ) be ca u se h e u sed o r po sses sed a f ir ea rm i n connec t i on w i th anotherfel ony . H i s t ot al offe ns e l evel , aft erthe appr opr i at e r educt i on 2 f o r a c c e p tan c e o f

re sp o n sib ili ty , w a s 2 5 ; h is c rim in a l h isto ryc a teg o ryw a s V I; a n d h is g u ideline im p ri so n m en t r an g e w as 1 1 0 to 1 3 7 m o n ths, w h ich, be ca u se o f a statu tory m axim um of 1 0 y ears , becam e 11 0 to 120 m on ths. C l ark obj ect ed t o t he four - l evel i ncr eas e, r el y i ng on the negot i at i ons betw een co u n sel an d the A . U . S . A . p ri o r t o en teri n g into the p lea a g ree m en t. T h e D istri ct C o u rt 3 w as notper s uaded, and s ent ence d hi m t o 110 m onths i n pr i s on fol l ow ed bythr ee y ear s of supervi sed rel ease. H e app eal s. II. C l ark ar gues thatcouns el ’ s l ett erof D ece m ber20, 2004 pr ecl uded the governm ent f ro m se e k in g th e f

o u r-le v e l in c re a se u n d e r § 2 K 2 .1 (b )(5 ). T h e g o v e rn m e n t ar g u e s, in r e s p o n s e , th a tth e a p p e a l m u s tb e d i s m i s s e d b e c a u s e C l a r k w a i v e d h i s r i g h tt o a p p e a l . We a g re e w ith th e g o v e rn m e n t. T he pert i nentpartof the pl ea a gr eementpr ovi des thatC l ark w ai ved “the r i ghtt o t ake a di r ectappea l fr om hi s convi ct i on ors ent ence under28I ndeed, couns el ’ s des cr i pt i on of hi s conver s at i ons w i th the A U SA confi r m thatno 4 “h ard an d fa st plea o ff

er” w as in p lace as o f th e d ate o f th e lett er. ( A 4 7 ) T h ey“w ere cont i nui ng t o di s cus s the mat t er s . ” (I d. ) 4 U . S . C . §1 29 1 o r 18 U . S . C . §3 74 2, subjectt o the foll ow i ng excep t i on s: ( a) I f the U ni t ed St at es appea l s fr om the s ent ence , A nt oi ne C l arke [s i c] m ayt ake a di r ectappea l fr om the s ent ence . ( b) I f ( 1) the s ent ence exce eds the appl i cabl e s t atut oryl i m i t s s et for th i n t he U ni t ed St at es C ode, or( 2) the s ent ence unr eas onabl yexce eds the gui del i ne r ange de t erm i ned bythe C our tunderthe Sent enci ng G ui del i nes , A nt oi ne C l arke [s i c] m ayt ake a di r ectappea l fr om the s ent ence . ” ( SA 2. ) A w ai verof appe al , the val i di tyof w hi ch i s s ubj ectt o de novo r evi ew , w i l l be en fo rce d p rov ided itw as “ en tered into k n o w ing lyan d v o lun tari ly , u n less [it ] w o rk[ s] a m i s carr i age of

j us t i ce. ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. Khat tak , 2 7 3 F . 3 d 5 5 7 , 5 5 8 , 5 6 0 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). C l ark does nots er i ous l ycont end thathi s w ai verof appe al w as unknow i ng or inv o lun tary , an d , at th e c h an g e o f p lea h ea ri n g , h e a g ree d that the g o v ern m en t’ s su m m ary of the pl ea a gr eementw as acc ur at e. M or eover , no m i s carr i age of j us t i ce w i l l r es ul tfr om enfor ci ng the w ai ver . T her e i s nothi ng i n the r ecor d thats ugges t s thatthe governm ent ag ree d n o t t o see k the § 2 K 2 . 1 (b)(5 ) en h an ce m en t, an d the lac k o f a resp o n se to co u n sel’s lette r d id n o t es tab lish th e e x iste n c e o f a p ro m ise . M o re o v e r, th e p lea a g re e m e n t it se lf

4 co n tai n s n o m en ti o n o f a n ysu ch p rom ise, an d , at th e c h an g e o f p lea h ea ri n g , C lark confi r m ed thatno pr om i s es ot herthan thos e mem or i al i zed i n the pl ea a gr eementhad bee n m ade t o hi m . I n anyevent , even i f ther e had be en a pr om i s e, i tw as notbr eac hed byt he g o v e rn m e n t g iv e n th a t n o e n h a n c e m e n t w a s s o u g h t b yit.5

C lar k a lso a rg u e s th a t h e re c e iv e d in e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f

c o u n se l, w h ich c a n , in c e rt a in c ir c u m s ta n c e s , s e rv e a s th e b a s is f o r s e ttin g a s id e a v a lid p le a . U ni t ed Stat es v. B r oce , 4 8 8 U .S . 5 6 3 , 5 7 4 (1 9 8 9 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. Thornton , 3 2 7 F . 3 d 2 6 8 , 2 7 1 (3d C ir . 2003) . H ow ever , w e have a “s tr ong pr efe r ence forr evi ew i ng al l egat i ons of i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el i n col l at er al pr ocee di ngs under28 U . S. C . § 2255 r atherthan on di r ectappea l . ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. Sandi ni , 8 8 8 F . 2 d 3 0 0 , 3 1 2 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 9 ). C lark cont ends thathi s couns el ’ s obj ect i on t o the four - l evel i ncr eas e atthe s ent enci ng hear i ng “w as, esse n ti all y , an o ral m o ti o n p u rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . [§ ] 22 5 5 an d is th ere fo re [ ] be fo re the C o u rtfo r ap p ell ate rev iew . ” (A p p ell an t’ s B r. at 17 ) A gai n, how ever , hi s w ai vers t ands i n the w ay , beca us e he w ai ved notj us ta di r ect appea l but“w ai ve[d] the r i ghtt o fi l e a mot i on t o vaca t e s ent ence , under28 U . S. C . §2255

. . . . ” ( SA 2) . C l ark does notcl ai m thatthe w ai veri t s el f w as the pr oductof i neff ect i venes s , butonl ythatcouns el fai l ed t o ens ur e thatthe pl ea a gr eementi ncl uded the governm ent ’ s pr om i s e nott o s eek a ddi t i onal enhanc ement s . E ven i f w e w er e t o r eac h t he i neff ect i venes s cl ai m and w er e t o as s um e thatcouns el ’ s “ac t s orom i s s i ons w er e out s i de the w i de r ange of

pr ofes s i onal l ycompet entas s i s t ance , ” s ee Str i ckland v. W as hi ngt on , 466 U . S. 668, 690 ( 1984) , the governm ent , as al r eadydi s cus s ed, m ade no s uch pr om i s e and n e v e r s o u g h t a n e n h a n c e m e n t. T h e re f o re , C la rk c a n n o t e s ta b lis h p re ju d ic e . See i d. at692 ( “[A ] nydefi ci enci es i n couns el ’ s per form ance m us tbe pr ej udi ci al t o the def ens e i n or der to co n sti tute inef

fe cti v e a ssist an ce u n d er the C o n sti tuti o n . ”).6 III . F o r t h e f o re g o in g re a s o n s , th e a p p e a l w ill b e d is m is s e d f o r l a c k o f

ju ri s d ic tio n .