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 4-21-2006 

# U SA v . M urr a y 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 . 04-3572

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 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 . M urr a y " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1235. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/1235NOT 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. 04- 3572

__________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. CH AR L E S F . M UR RA Y, 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

fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C r i m i nal N o. 04- cr - 00207) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J os eph E. I r enas

__________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ar ch 6, 2006 B efore: R E N D E L L , A M B R O , C i rcui tJudg es, and SH A PI R O *, D i s t r i ctJ udge ( Fi l ed A pr i l 21, 2006)

__________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

__________

___________________ * H onor abl e N or m a L. Shapi r o, Seni orJ udge of the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfor the East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on.A f

ter c o u n se l f

iled th e N o tice o f

A p p e a l, bu t b e f

o re su b m itt in g th e b rie f s p re se n tly 1 befor e us , t he Supr eme C our thel d t hatthe Sent enci ng G ui del i nes ar e onl yadvi s oryand th a tf a c t s r e l e v a n tt o s e n t e n c i n g – o t h e rth a n p r i o rc o n v i c t i o n s – m u s tb e d e t e r m i n e d b y a 2 R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJ udge. O n oraboutJ anuary30, 2004, C har l es M urr aypl ed gui l t yt o a cr i m i nal in f o rm a tio n o f

tw o c o u n ts o f

tra v e lin g in in ter sta te c o m m e rc e to e n g a g e in se x u a l ac ts w i th a mi nor , i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 2423( b) . I n hi s pl ea a gr eement , M urr ayw ai ved hi s r i ghtt o fi l e anyappea l , col l at er al at t ack, oranyot herw r i torm ot i on aft ers ent enci ng i f the s ent enci ng cour tdet erm i ned M urr ay ’ s offe ns e l evel t o be equa l t o orl es s than 27 underthe Sent enci ng G ui del i nes . A ft erext ens i vel yques t i oni ng M urr ay , the D i s t r i ct C o u rt f o u n d th a t M u rra yu n d e rsto o d th e ter m s o f th e p lea a g re e m e n t an d a c c e p ted its t erm s know i ngl y , i nt el l i gent l yand vol unt ar i l y , and w i t houtanythr eat s , pr om i s es or c o e rc io n . A ts ent enci ng, t he D i s t r i ctC our tdet erm i ned M urr ay ’ s bas e off ens e l evel t o be 27, w i th a cr i m i nal hi s t or ycat egoryof I I – r es ul t i ng i n a s ent enci ng r ange of 78 t o 97 m ont hs im p riso n m e n t u n d e r th e S e n ten c in g G u id e lin e s. T h e D istric t C o u rt se n ten c e d M u rra yto 83 m onths i m pr i s onm entand, i n l i ghtof the Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n B l akel y v. W as hi ngt on , 5 4 2 U .S . 2 9 6 (2 0 0 4 ), sta ted th a t itw o u ld im p o se th e sa m e se n ten c e e v e n if the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes w er e notm andat ory . M urr ayi ns t ruct ed hi s couns el t o fi l e an appea l – des pi t e the w ai verof appe l l at e r i ght s cont ai ned i n t he pl ea a gr eement– and c o u n se l f iled a N o tice o f

A p p e a l o n A u g u st 3 1 , 2 0 0 4 . C o u n se l f o r M u rra ysu b se q u e n tly 1ju ryo r a d m itt e d b yd e f e n d a n t. U

ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) T hir d C i rcui tL ocal A pp el l at e R ule 109.2( a) r equ i res the g ov ernm ent t o fil e a res po nse 2 br i ef a nd al l ow s appel l antt o s ubm i ta pro se r es pons e br i ef. 3 fi l ed a br i ef pur s uantt o A n d e rs v . C a lif o rn ia , 3 8 6 U . S . 7 3 8 (19 6 7 ), stat ing that af ter a c o n sc ien tio u s e x a m in a tio n o f th e re c o rd , co u n se l co u ld n o t ra ise a n yiss u e o f a rg u a b le m er i ton appea l . T her eaf t er , t he def

endantfi l ed a pro se br i ef a nd the governm entfi l ed a re s p o n s e b ri e f. T h ird C irc u it L o c a l A p p e llate R u le 1 0 9 .2 (a ) f o llo w s th e g u id e lin e s s e t f o rth in A nd ers , pr ovi di ng t hatcouns el m ays ubm i ta mot i on t o w i t hdr aw and an A nd ers br i ef w her e couns el “i s per s uaded thatt he appe al pr es ent s no i s s ue of e ven ar guabl e mer i t . ” W hen couns el s ubm i t s an A nd ers br i ef, w e as k “( 1) w hethercouns el adequa t el yful fi l l ed [R u le 10 9 . 2 (a)’s] requ ir em en ts; an d (2) w h ethe r an ind ep en d en t r ev iew o f th e re co rd p re s e n ts a n yn o n f

ri v o lo u s is s u e s .” U

n itedS ta tes v . Y

o u la , 2 4 1 F . 3 d 2 9 6 , 3 0 0 (3d C ir . 2 2 0 0 1 ); U n itedS ta tes v . M

a rv in , 211 F. 3d 778, 780- 81 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ( adopt i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. Tabb , 125 F. 3d 583 ( 7t h C i r . 1991) , w her ei n t he courts t at ed thati n an A nd ers situ a tio n c o u n se l m u st (1 ) sa tisf yto th e c o u rt th a t h e o r sh e h a s th o ro u g h ly sco u red the re co rd in sea rch o f a p p ea lable issu es; an d (2) e x p lai n w h yan ysu ch issue s are f ri v o lo u s ). F u rt h e rm o re , w h ile “ c o u n s e l n e e d n o t r a is e a n d re je c t e v e ry p o s s ib le c la im . . . he ors he mustm eett he ‘ cons ci ent i ous exami nat i on’ s t andar d s etfor t h i n A nd ers . ” Y o u la , 2 4 1 F .3 d a t 3 0 0 . H e re , af ter a c o n sc ien tio u s e x a m in a tio n o f th e re c o rd , co u n se l co rre c tly assert ed in hi s A nd ers br i ef thatM ur r ayknow i ngl y , i nt el l i gent l yand vol unt ar i l yw ai vedE ven i f M ur r ay ’ s appel l at e w ai verw er e i nval i d, M urr ay ’ s chal l enge t o t he D i s t r i ct 3 C our t ’ s i m pos i t i on of a s ent enci ng enhanc ementpur s uantt o § 2A 3. 2( b) ( 2) ( B ) of the S e n ten c in g G u id e lin e s w o u ld b e m e ritles s. M u rra ystip u late d to th is e n h a n c e m e n t in h is 4 his app el l at e ri gh t s i n h i s pl ea agreem ent. In hi s pr o s e br i ef, M urr aydoes notchal l enge h is w a iv e r o n th is b a sis . A d d iti o n a lly , co u n se l ex p lain e d th a t th e D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rly s ent ence d M ur r ay , and thatt he Supr eme C our t ’ s s ubs equentdeci s i ons i n B la ke ly and U n ite d S ta te s v . B o o ke r, 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) , do noti nval i dat e M urr ay ’ s pl ea a gr eement a n d w a iv e r o f

a p p e lla te ri g h ts . W e are s at i sfi ed thatcou nsel has fu l fi l l ed b oth hi s A nd ers o b lig a tio n s a n d th e R u le 109. 2( a) r equi r ement s . W e fi nd t hatthe i s s ues defe ndantas s ert s on appea l l ack l egal m e rit. T h e re f

o re , w e g ra n t co u n se l’s re q u e st to w ith d ra w a n d d ism iss th e a p p e a l. Mu r r a y ’ s w a i v e ro f

a p p e l l a t e r i g h t s p r e c l u d e s h i m f r o m b r i n g i n g th i s a p p e a l . We have he l d t hat“w ai ver s of appe al s , i f ent er ed i nt o know i ngl yand vol unt ar i l y , ar e val i d, unl es s t heyw or k a mi s carr i age of j us t i ce. ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. Khat tak , 273 F. 3d 557, 563 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . M ur r ayent er ed i nt o hi s pl ea a gr eementknow i ngl y , vol unt ar i l yand i nt el l i gent l y . H e had c om pet entcouns el and w as aw ar e of the natur e of the cha r ges agai ns thi m . T her e i s no i ndi cat i on thatM urr ayw as i ncompet ent . A ts ent enci ng, the D i s tr i ctC our tt hor oughl yques t i oned M urr ayaboutthe cr i m es det ai l ed i n t he pl ea agr eementand M ur r ayadmi t t ed thathe had c om m i t t ed al l of the off ens es . M urr ay i nform ed the D i s t r i ctC our tt hathe agr eed w i t h al l of the s t i pul at i ons i n hi s pl ea agr eementand under s t ood t hathe w as w ai vi ng hi s r i ght s t o appea l . A ccor di ngl y , he 3pl ea a gr eement . I n B la ke ly , t he Supr eme C our ts t at ed that“[w ] hen a de fenda ntpl eads

gui l ty , the St at e i s fr ee t o s eek j udi ci al s ent ence enhanc ement s s o l ong as the def endant e ith e r s tip u la te s to th e re le v a n t f a c ts o r c o n s e n ts to ju d ic ia l f a c tf in d in g .” 5 4 2 U .S . a t 3 1 0 . W e have r epea t edl yhel d t hata def endantm aynot“r enege on hi s agr eement ” by c h a lle n g in g o n a p p e a l a n e n h a n c e m e n t th a t d e f e n d a n t s tip u la te d to in h is p le a a g re e m e n t. U ni t ed Stat es v. C i anci , 1 5 4 F .3 d 1 0 6 , 1 1 0 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 8 ); s ee als o U ni t ed Stat es v. Mel endez , 55 F. 3d 130 ( 3d C i r . 1995) ( barr i ng defe ndantfr om di s put i ng s t i pul at i on r egar di ng s ent enci ng r ange) . H er e, M urr ays t i pul at ed t o t he “undue i nfl uence ” e n h a n c e m e n t in h is p lea a g re e m e n t; th e re f o re , n o ju d icia l f

a c tf in d in g w a s n e c e ss a ryto w a rra n t th e se n ten c in g e n h a n c e m e n t. 5 w ai ved thi s r i ghtand hi s appea l w i l l be di s m i s s ed. I n addi t i on, w e not e thatM ur r ayw oul d nothave be en ent i t l ed t o r es ent enci ng u n d er B o o ke r . I n U

n itedS ta tes v . Hill , 411 F. 3d 425, 426 ( 3d C i r . 2005) , w e hel d t hat w her e the D i s t r i ctC our tcl ear l yi ndi cat es thatan al t ernat i ve s ent ence w oul d be i dent i cal to the sen tenc e im p o sed u n d er the G u idelines , an yerro r th at m ayatt ac h to a d ef en d an t’ s sen tenc e u n d er B ookeri s harm l es s . H er e, the D i s t r i ctC our tcl ar i fi ed thati tw oul d have i m pos ed the s ame se nt ence as s um i ng t he G ui del i nes w er e onl yadvi s ory . T her efor e, M urr aycoul d notr ai s e a B oo ker c h a llen g e o n a p p e a l. F o r th e f

o reg o ing rea so n s, w e w il l dism iss th e a p p ea l and g ran t def en se c o u n sel’s m o tio n to w ith d ra w .

_______________________