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 4-29-2009 

# U SA v . Ant onio O cho a-H e rn an 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 . 08-1673

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 . Ant onio O cho a -H e rn an" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1457. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1457NOT 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. 08- 1673

____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. AN TON I O O CH OA - HER NA ND EZ,

a /k /a AN TON I O C HO RA - HER NA ND EZ,

a /k /a ALB ERTO M AR TI NEZ- PEREZ,

a /k /a J OSE M AN UEL O RTI Z- M END EZ A nt oni o O choa- H ernandez , 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 M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 1- 07- cr - 00311- 001) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le Jo h n E . Jo n es, II I

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

A pr i l 23, 2009 B e f o re : S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge , S L O V IT E R a n d F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudges . ( Fi l ed: A pr i l 29, 2009)

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________2

F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudge . T hi s appea l ar i s es outof A nt oni o O choa- H ernandez ’ s gui l typl ea a nd s ubs equent s e n t e n c e o f

4 1 m o n th s ’ i m p r i s o n m e n tf o ri l l e g a l r e e n try i n t o th e U n i t e d S t a t e s b y a pr evi ous l ydeport ed al i en fol l ow i ng convi ct i on of an a ggr avat ed fe l onyi n vi ol at i on of 8 U . S. C . § 1326( a) and ( b) ( 2) . A ft erO choa- H ernandez fi l ed a t i m el ypr o s e not i ce of appea l , hi s couns el fi l ed a br i ef a nd m ot i on t o w i thdr aw r epr es ent at i on pur s uantt o A nd ers v . C a lif o rn ia , 3 8 6 U . S . 7 3 8 (19 6 7 ). F o r th e re aso n s tha t fo ll o w , w e w il l gran t cou n sel’s A nd ers m o ti o n an d af

firm O ch o a-H ern an d ez ’s co n v ict ion an d the D istri ct C o u rt ’s j udgm entof s ent ence . I. W e w r i t e exc l us i vel yforthe part i es , w ho ar e fa m i l i arw i th the fa ctual cont extand l egal hi s t oryof thi s cas e. T her efor e, w e w i l l s etfor th onl ythos e fa ct s nece s s aryt o our analy si s. A P e n n sy lv a n ia S tate T ro o p e r e n c o u n ter e d a d isa b led v a n o n th e P e n n sy lv a n ia T urnpi ke on J ul y9, 2007, and, i n r ender i ng as s i s t ance t o the van’ s occupa nt s , di s cover ed thatthe dr i verand pas s enger s , i ncl udi ng O choa- H ernandez , w er e i n the U ni t ed St at es i l l e g a l l y . Oc h o a - He r n a n d e z wa s t a k e n i n t o c u s t o d yb yU. S . I mmi g r a t i o n a n d Cu s t o ms E nfor cement , aft erw hi ch i t s offi cer s l earned thathe had pr evi ous l ybeen de por t ed fr om the U ni t ed St at es thr ee t i m es and thathe had be en convi ct ed i n W as hi ngt on St at e of del i veryof and c ons pi r acyt o del i verm ethamphet ami ne overt en y ear s ear l i er . O choa-3

H e rn a n d e z w a s i n d i c t e d o n o n e c o u n to f i l l e g a l r e e n try i n t o th e U n i t e d S t a t e s b y a pr evi ous l ydeport ed al i en fol l ow i ng convi ct i on of an a ggr avat ed fe l ony , i n vi ol at i on of 8 U . S. C . § 1326( a) and ( b) ( 2) , t o w hi ch he pl ed gui l typur s uantt o a w r i t t en pl ea a gr eement w ith th e G o v e rn m e n t. T he U . S. Pr obat i on O ffi ce pr epar ed a Pr es ent ence I nves t i gat i on R eport , w hi ch the D i s tr i ctC our tadopt ed w i thoutchange . U nderthe U . S. Sent enci ng G ui del i nes , O choaH ernandez ’ s t ot al offe ns e l evel w as 21, i ncl udi ng a thr ee- l evel r educt i on foracc ept ance o f re s p o n s ib ility p u rs u a n t to h is p le a a g re e m e n t, a n d h is c ri m in a l h is to ry w a s c a te g o ry II I. B ased on these calcul at i on s, his adv i soryG uidel i nes range w as 46 to 57 m on ths’ i m pr i s onm ent . A ts ent enci ng on February26, 2008, the D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed a va r i ance beca us e O choa- H ernandez had no hi s t oryof vi ol ence and had s t ay ed “r el at i vel ycr i m efr ee” fora l ong t i m e per i od aft erhi s one drug convi ct i on. I ti m pos ed a s ent ence of 41 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm ent , as w el l as a s peci al as s es s m entt ot al i ng $100 and s upervi s ed r el eas e fora t erm of thr ee y ear s . T hi s s ent ence i s bel ow the s t atut orym axi m um s ent ence o f tw e n tyy e a rs, a s s e t f

o rth in 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 6 (b )(2 ). O c h o a -H e rn a n d e z f iled a tim e ly p ro se n o tice o f

a p p e a l. C o n c lu d in g th a t th e re w e re n o n o n f riv o lo u s is su e s to a p p e a l, his tr i al couns el fi l ed a mot i on t o w i thdr aw and a s uppor t i ng br i ef. O choa- H ernandez di d not fi l e a pr o s e br i ef.T hi r d C i r cui tL ocal A ppel l at e R ul e 109. 2( a) pr ovi des that“[w ] her e, upon r evi ew 1 of the di s tr i ctcourtr ecor d, tr i al couns el i s per s uaded thatthe appe al pr es ent s no i s s ue of even a r guabl e mer i t , tr i al couns el m ayfi l e a mot i on t o w i thdr aw and s uppor t i ng br i ef pur s uantt o A n d e rs v . C a lif o rn ia , 386 U . S. 738 ( 1967) , w hi ch s hal l be s erved upon the ap p ell an t and the U n it ed S tat es” (cit ati o n s o m itted). 4 II. W e exe r ci s e j ur i s di ct i on overthi s appea l pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291 and 18 U . S. C . § 3742( a) . I n A nd ers , the S u p rem e C o u rth eld th at “if c o u n sel find s h is [cli en t’ s app eal ] t o b e w ho l l yfri vo l ou s, aft er a consci enti ou s exam i nati on of it , he sho uld so advi s e the courtand r eques tperm i s s i on t o w i thdr aw . ” 386 U . S. at744. I n doi ng s o, couns el m us ts ubm i ta br i ef a ddr es s i ng anyi s s ue that“mi ghtar guabl ys uppor tthe appea l . ” I

d. ; see al so L .A .R . 1 0 9 .2 (a ). W e m u st th e n a sc e rta in w h e th e r th e a p p e a l is 1 “w hol l yfr i vol ous . ” A nd ers , 3 8 6 U .S . at 7 4 4 . In m a k in g th is d e ter m in a tio n , w e e v a lu a te: “( 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 Stat es v. Y o u la , 2 4 1 F . 3 d 2 9 6 , 3 0 0 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). III . A. U nderthe fi r s tpr ong of thi s i nqui ry , couns el m us t“s at i s fythe courtthat[he] has thor oughl yexami ned the r ecor d i n s ear ch of a ppeal abl e i s s ues , and . . . expl ai n w hyt he i s s ues ar e fr i vol ous . ” I

d. In h is b rie f

, co u n se l ad d re ss e d th e f o llo w in g th re e iss u e s: w hetherthe D i s tr i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on t o ent erO choa- H ernandez ’ s convi ct i on and5

i m pos e s ent ence on hi m ; w hetherO choa- H ernandez ’ s gui l typl ea w as val i d and vol unt ary ; and w hetherO choa- H ernandez ’ s s ent ence w as l egal and r eas onabl e. C ouns el al s o pr ovi ded an e xpl anat i on as t o w hyeac h of thes e i s s ues i s fr i vol ous . H avi ng r evi ew ed c o u n se l’s b rie f

a n d th e a c c o m p a n y in g m a ter ials , w e c o n c lu d e th a t h e h a s m e t th is re q u ire m e n t. B. A ft erdet erm i ni ng thatcouns el has s at i s fi ed the fi r s tpr ong, w e mustthen r evi ew th e re c o rd a n d in d e p e n d e n tly d e te rm in e w h e th e r a n yn o n f ri v o lo u s is s u e s f

o r a p p e a l e x is t. “[A ] n appea l on a mat t erof l aw i s fr i vol ous w her e ‘ [none] of the l egal poi nt s [ar e] ar guabl e on thei rm er i t s . ’ ” Ne i t z ke v . Wi l l i a ms , 4 9 0 U .S . 3 1 9 , 3 2 5 (1 9 8 9 ) (a ltera tio n s in or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng A nd ers , 386 U . S. at744) . A l though ourr evi ew i s i ndepende nt , i f the A nd ers b rie f

a p p e a rs to b e a d e q u a te o n its f a c e , a “ c o m p lete sc o u rin g o f th e re c o rd ” is u n n e c e s s a ry. Y

o u la , 241 F. 3d at301. I ns t ead, w e ca n al l ow the A nd ers br i ef t o gui de our re v ie w . I

d. In the p res ent cas e, cou nsel ’s A nd ers b rie f is a d e q u a te o n its f

a c e a n d , thu s, it wi l l g u i d e o u rr e v i e w. Fi r s t , couns el r ai s es the i s s ue of the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s j ur i s di ct i on t o ent erO choaH ernandez ’ s convi ct i on and i m pos e s ent ence on hi m . B eca us e the D i s tr i ctC our thas s ubj ect - m att erj ur i s di ct i on overal l offe ns es agai ns tthe l aw s of the U ni t ed St at es under18 U . S. C . § 3231, w hi ch i ncl udes the off ens e ati s s ue i n thi s cas e, w e agr ee w i th couns el t hat anychall eng e t o the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s j uri sdi ct i on i s m eri t l ess.6

Second, couns el r ai s es the i s s ue of w hetherO choa- H ernandez ’ s gui l typl ea w as val i d and vol unt ary . Fora gui l typl ea t o m eetthe cons t i tut i onal r equi r ement s es t abl i s hed i n B o y k i n v . A la b a ma , 395 U . S. 238 ( 1969) , and the s t atut oryr equi r ement s of Feder al R u l e o f C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e 1 1 , w e h a v e s t a t e d th a td u r i n g th e p l e a c o l l o q u y:

“ T h e c o u rt m u st a d v ise th e d e f e n d a n t, i n ter a lia, o f

th e w a iv e r o f

c e rta in c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts b yv irtu e o f a g u iltyp lea , the n a tu re o f th e c h a rg e s to w hi ch he ors he i s pl eadi ng gui l ty , the maxi m um pos s i bl e pena l tyt o w hi ch he ors he i s expos ed, the court ’ s obl i gat i on t o appl ythe Sent enci ng Gu i d e l i n e s [ a n d ] . . . d i s c r e t i o n t o d e p a r tf r o m th o s e g u i d e l i n e s u n d e rs o me ci r cumst ance s , and the t erm s of anypl ea- agr eementpr ovi s i on w ai vi ng the ri gh tt o ap peal ort o co l l at eral l yat t ack the sent ence. Th e dis tri ctcou rtm ust e n su re th a t th e d e f

e n d a n t re c e iv e s th e se c a v e a ts, u n d e rsta n d s th e m , an d still w is h e s o f

h is o r h e r o w n v o litio n to p le a d g u ilty.” U ni t ed Stat es v. Schw ei t

z er , 4 5 4 F .3 d 1 9 7 , 2 0 2 -0 3 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ) (a ltera tio n s in o rig in a l) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . A ft err evi ew i ng the tr ans cr i ptof the pl ea c ol l oquy , w e conc l ude thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tthor oughl yadvi s ed O choa- H ernandez of al l of the above i s s ues , thatO choa- H ernandez i ndi cat ed thathe under s t ood the c o n s e q u e n c e s o f

h is p le a , a n d th a t h e e n te re d h is p le a k n o w in g ly an d v o lu n ta ri ly. T h e re f o re , this iss u e lac k s m e rit. F in a lly , w e a g re e w ith c o u n se l th a t n o n o n f riv o lo u s is su e s to a p p e a l ex ist a s to O choa- H ernandez ’ s s ent ence , w hi ch w e exa m i ne forpr ocedur al and s ubs t ant i ve r eas onabl enes s underan abus e of di s cr et i on s t andar d pur s uantt o G al lv. U ni t ed Stat es , 1 2 8 S . C t . 5 8 6 , 5 9 7 ( 2 0 0 7 ) . A s r e q u i r e d b y U ni t ed Stat es v. G unt er , 462 F. 3d 237, 247 ( 3d C i r . 2006) , the D i s tr i ctC our tpr oper l ycal cul at ed O choa- H ernandez ’ s G ui del i nesA s a r es ul t , w e conc l ude thati ti s notnece s s aryt o appoi ntcouns el t o fi l e a 2 pet i t i on forr ehea r i ng i n t hi s C our tora pet i t i on forw r i tof ce r t i or ar i i n the U ni t ed St at es S u p re m e C o u rt o n O c h o a -H e rn a n d e z ’s b e h a lf. See L . A . R . 1 0 9 . 2 (b). 7 r ange a s 46 t o 57 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm ent , corr ect l ydet erm i ned ther e w er e no pendi ng or a p p lica b le m o tio n s f

o r d e p a rtu re a n d th u s d id n o t g ra n t an y , an d th e n e x e rc ise d its di s cr et i on bycons i der i ng the r el evant18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) fac t or s , ul t i m at el ygr ant i ng a v a ri a n c e a n d im p o s in g a b e lo w -G u id e lin e s s e n te n c e o f 4 1 m o n th s ’ i m p ri s o n m e n t. M or eover , ther e i s no bas i s on w hi ch t o concl ude thatO choa- H ernandez ’ s s ent ence w as s ubs t ant i vel yunr eas onabl e i n l i ghtof the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s m eani ngful cons i der at i on and a p p lic a tio n o f

th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f

a c to rs . See U

ni t ed Stat es v. C ooper , 437 F. 3d 324, 329 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . A ccor di ngl y , ouri ndepende ntr evi ew of the r ecor d demonstr at es thatO choaH e rn a n d e z h a s n o n o n f

riv o lo u s is su e s f

o r a p p e a l. I V. F o r th e a fo rem en ti o n ed rea so n s, w e w il l gran t O ch o a-H ern an d ez ’s co u n sel’s A nd ers m o tio n a n d a f

f irm th e se n ten c e im p o se d b yth e D istric t C o u rt. 2