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 7-11-2006 

# U SA v . M or t on P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 04-1229

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 l l a no va . 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 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 no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2006 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 no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . M or t on" (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 765. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/765NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL

U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 04- 1229

UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. HAR OL D M OR T ON, 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 r i m . N o. 01- cr - 00320) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H on. J ohn P. Ful l am Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J ul y10, 2006 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , M cK E E and R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed J ul y11, 2006)

OP I NI ON2

SL O V I T E R , C i r cui tJ udge. A p p ell an t H aro ld M o rt o n p led g u il tyto p o sses sion w ith inten t t o d istri b u te m o re t han fi ve gr ams of coc ai ne bas e ( cr ack) i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) ( C ount O ne) ; pos s es s i on w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e more t han fi ve gr ams of coc ai ne bas e ( cr ack) w i t hi n 1, 000 fee tof a s chool i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 860 ( C ountT w o) ; carr y i ng a f ir e a rm d u ri n g a n d in re la tio n to a d ru g tr a f f ic k in g c ri m e in v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 4 ( c ) ( Co u n tF i v e ) ; a n d b e i n g a f e l o n i n p o s s e s s i o n o f

a f i r e a r m i n v i o l a t i o n o f

1 8 U. S . C. § 922( g) ( C ountSi x) . T he G overnm entfi l ed an i nfor m at i on i ndi cat i ng t hati tw oul d s eek enhanc ed s ent enci ng on C ount s O ne and Tw o bas ed on M or t on’ s pr i orfel onydrug convi ct i on - an off

ens e forw hi ch M or t on w as on par ol e att he t i m e he c om m i t t ed the i nst ant offenses. T h e w ri tt en g u il typ lea a g ree m en t exp li cit lyn o ti fied M o rt o n that the m an d atory m i ni m um s ent ence forC ount s O ne and Tw o w as t en y ear s ’ i m pr i s onm entand thatt he m andat or ym i ni m um forC ountFi ve w as fi ve y ear s ’ i m pr i s onm ent , t o be s er ved c o n se c u tiv e lyto a n yo th e r se n ten c e im p o se d . T h e D istric t C o u rt (F u llam , J.) f u lly ex p lai n ed the m an d atorysen tenc es to M o rt o n at t h e c h an g e o f p lea h ea ri n g . T h ere af ter, t h e D i s t r i c tC o u r tf

o u n d M o r t o n ’ s g u i l t y p l e a t o b e k n o w i n g , i n t e l l i g e n ta n d v o l u n t a r y. O n N ovember 13, 2003, t he C our ts ent ence d M or t on t o concurr entt er m s of t en y ea rs’ i m p ri so n m en t on C o u n ts O n e, T w o , an d S ix to b e f o ll o w ed b ythe m an d atoryT he D i s t r i ctC our tal s o im p o sed an ei ght - y eart er m of 1 s uper vi s ed r el eas e. A s par t of t he pl ea agr eement , t he C o u rt d ism iss e d C o u n ts T h re e a n d F o u r o f th e in d ictm e n t. B ase d o n h is total of

fe n se lev el of

2 5 an d crim inal h ist o ry 2 cat egoryof I I I , M or t on fac ed a G ui del i nes sent ence of 70 t o 87 m on t hs i n p ri son. H o w ever, becau se of t he st atutorym i nim um s, t he D i s t r i ctC our tw as req ui r ed t o i m pos e an a ggr egat e mi ni m um sent ence o f 18 0 m on t hs. N o tably , the G o v e rn m en t did n o t agre e to m o v e f o r a 3 departur e bel ow t he s t atut or ym i ni m um for s ubs t ant i al as s i s t ance . S ee 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 (e). 3 cons ecut i ve s ent ence of fi ve y ear s ’ i ncar cer at i on on C ountFi ve. I n t he cour s e of the 1 s ent enci ng, t he D i s t r i ctC our ts t at ed thati tw as s ent enci ng t o t he mi ni m um r equi r ed by s t atut e, buti f t hos e mandat or ym i ni m um s w er e noti n pl ace , t he C our tw oul d have s ent ence d M or t on t o fi ve ors i x y ear s ’ i ncar cer at i on. 2 T h e G o v e rn m e n t ag re e d to f ile a m o tio n u n d e r U .S .S .G . § 5 K 1 .1 to p e rm it a dow nw ar d departur e fr om t he otherw i s e appl i cabl e G ui del i ne r ange s houl d t he G overnm enti n i t s s ol e di s cr et i on det er m i ne thatM or t on had pr ovi ded s ubs t ant i al as s i s t ance t o l aw enfor cement . H ow ever , beca us e the D i s t r i ctC our tdi d nots ent ence M or t on pur s uantt o t he G ui del i nes , t her e w as no occa s i on fora § 5K 1. 1 m ot i on. 3 M or t on appea l s . H i s couns el fi l ed a br i ef pur s uantt o A nder s v. C al i forni a, 386 U .S . 7 3 8 (1 9 6 7 ). 

### Unde r

Ande r s , i f, a ft e r

r e vi e w of the di s tri c t

c ourt r e c or d and a c ons c i e nt i ous i nve s t i gat i on, c ouns e li s c onvi nc e d that the a ppe a lpr e s e nt s no i s s ue of arg u ab le m erit, co un sel m ay p ro p erly askto w ith draww h ile f

ilin g a b rief

ref errin g to4



### any thi ngi n ther e c ord that

mi ght ar gu ably s up po rt thea pp e a l . Se e i d. at

74 1- 42 , 74 4. To s at i s fy the Ande r s r e qui r e m e nt s , a ppe l l ant ’ s c ouns e lm

us t “ s at i s fy the c ourt that he or s he ha s thor oughl y

s c our e d the r e c or d i n s e ar c h of a ppe a l abl e i s s ue s ” and the n “ e xpl a i n why the i ss ues are frivolou s. ” U ni t ed St at es v. M ar vi n, 211 F. 3d 778, 780 ( 3d C i r . 2000) (cit ati o n o m itted). T h e re is n o d is p u te w ith re s p e c t to th e f a c ts in th is c a s e . 

### Th e argum ent pre se nted inth e co un seledb rief

is th at M or t on’ s m andat or ys ent ence w as bas ed on a pr i orfel ony drug convi ct i on, t he evi dence of w hi ch w as nots ubm i t t ed t o a j ur yforpr oof bey ond a re a s o n a b le d o u b t. 

### C o un sel states th at th is claim is p atently

f riv o lo u s. We ag ree. In Un it ed Stat es v. Bo ok er , 543 U.S. 22 0 (20 05 ), the Court held that , “ [a]n y

fact ( othe r than apri or

c onvi c t i on) whi c h i s ne c e s s ary t o s upport

as e nt e nc e e xc e e di ng the m axi m um authori z e d by

the fa c t s e s t abl i s he d by

apl e aof gui l ty

or ajury ve r di c t m us t be admittedb y

th e d ef en d ant o r p ro v edto a j ury b eyo n da reaso n ab le d o ub t.” Id . at 2 4 4 . M or t on conce ded the pr i orfel onydrug convi ct i on i n hi s w r i t t en gui l t ypl ea a gr eement and the D i s t r i ctC our ti m pos ed i t s s ent ence bas ed s ol el yupon fac t s es t abl i s hed byt he p lea . M o re o v e r, a p rio r c o n v ictio n is e x p re ss lye x c lu d e d f ro m th e B o o k e r re q u ire m e n t, and the G overnm entfi l ed an i nfor m at i on expr es s i ng i t s i nt ent i on t o s eek the enha nced s ent ence bas ed on the pr i orconvi ct i on. In A lm e n d a re z -T o rre s, 5 2 3 U .S . 2 2 4 (1 9 9 8 ), th e S u p re m e C o u rt h e ld th a t a s ent enci ng j udge mayus e a pr i orconvi ct i on t o i ncr eas e a s t atut or ym axi m um w i t houtt hat5

convi ct i on havi ng been c har ged i n an i ndi ct m entand pr oved t o a j ur ybey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . A l m endar ez- T or r es r emai ns t he l aw of l and pos t - B ooker . See U ni t ed St at es v. O r daz, 398 F. 3d 236, 241 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . T hus , w e mustr ej ectanys ugges t i on of cons t i tut i onal err ori n t he s et t i ng of M or t on’ s s ent ence , w hi ch, as not ed, w as not enhanc ed bas ed upon anyfac t s found byt he D i s t r i ctC our tats ent enci ng. C f. U ni t ed St at es v. H arns , __ F. 3d __, 2006 W L 1314654, at*6 ( 10t h C i r . M ay15, 2006) ( r ecogni zi ng t hat“B ookerdoes notpr ecl ude a c our tfr om i m pos i ng a s t atut or ym i ni m um e s ta b lis h e d b yC o n g re s s b a s e d o n a d e f e n d a n t’ s re c o rd o f

p ri o r c o n v ic tio n s ” ). In a d d it ion , alt h o u g h M o rt o n w as se n tenc ed u n d er the p re-B o o k er, m an d atory G ui del i nes r egi m e, a r emand forr es ent enci ng undert he curr entadvi s or yG ui del i nes i s not nece s s ary . A s not ed, M or t on w as s ent ence d t o t he s t atut or ym i ni m um forhi s offe ns es b e c a u s e th a t m in im u m e x c e e d e d th e u p p e r- e n d o f th e re c o m m e n d e d G u id e lin e s s e n te n c e . T h e D istric t C o u rt b e liev e d th e se n ten c e e x c e ss iv e , b u t itc o rre c tlya c k n o w led g e d th a t it w as r equi r ed byl aw t o i m pos e the s t atut or i l ym andat ed s ent ence . See U ni t ed St at es v. K e llu m , 3 5 6 F .3 d 2 8 5 , 2 8 9 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). T h e c o u rt im p o se d th e lo w e st p o ss ib le s ent ence t hatM or t on coul d r ece i ve undert he contr ol l i ng s t atut es . I ti s cl ear , as a mat t er of l aw , t hatt her e i s no bas i s upon w hi ch the D i s t r i ctC our tcoul d i m pos e a l ow ers ent ence upon M or t on pos t - B ooker . St at ed anotherw ay , t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s s ent enci ng of M or t on undert he mandat or yG ui del i nes r egi m e w or ked no pos s i bl e pr ej udi ce t o M or t on, and thus a r emand forr es ent enci ng i s notr equi r ed. C f. U ni t ed St at es v. H i l l , 411 F. 3d 425, 426(3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (d e c lin in g to re m a n d w h e re d istric t co u rt h a d c lea rlyin d ica ted th a t it

w o u ld im p o se th e sa m e se n tenc e if the G u idelines w ere ad v isory ). W e have r evi ew ed the ava i l abl e r ecor d and not e thati ts uppor t s t he gui l t ypl ea accep t ed b yt he D i stri ctC ou rt . T he D i stri ctC ou rt ’s coll oq uyw as suffi ci ent t o est abli sh th a t th e p lea w a s k n o w in g , v o lu n tar y , an d in tellig e n t. 

### M o rto nw as adv isedth at h e co u ldf ile a p ro se b rief

. M or t on at t empt s t o pr es ent w h a t ap p e a rs to b e a c laim o f in e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f

c o u n se l, no tin g th a t h is c o u n se l d id notappea ratt he s ent enci ng hear i ng buti ns t ead s enta s ubs t i tut e w ho had neve r i nt er vi ew ed M or t on. T hi s cour thas expr es s ed a pr efe r ence t hats uch a c l ai m be r ai s ed on col l at er al r evi ew r athert han on di r ectappea l . See U ni t ed St at es v. T hor nt on, 327 F. 3d 268, 271 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l denyM or t on’ s cl ai m of i neff ect i ve a s s i s t a n c e o f

c o u n s e l wi t h o u tp r e

j u d i c e t o h i s r i g h tt o r a i s e i ti n a mo t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 2255. For t he r eas ons s t at ed, w e w i l l aff i r m t he j udgm entof convi ct i on and s ent ence and g r a n tc o u n s e l ’ s mo t i o n t o wi t h d r a w.

6