2010 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 4-28-2010 

# U SA v . D e nni s C arson 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 . 08-1740

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_2010

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 2010 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 . D e nni s C ar s on" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1446. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1446H onor abl e Paul R . M i chel , C hi ef J udge, U ni t ed St at es C our tof A ppeal s forthe * Feder al C i r cui t , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. 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 o. 08- 1740 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. DE NNI S D. CA RS ON,

A ppel l ant A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fo r th e D istri ct of

D elaw are ( D . C . C r i m i nal A ct i on N o. 1- 06- cr - 00116- 001) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e G r egoryM . Sl eet Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ar ch 9, 2010 B efor e: A M B R O , SM I T H and M I C H E L , C i r cui tJ udges * ( Fi l ed: A pr i l 28, 2010 ) OP I NI ON A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udge D enni s C ar s on pl ed gui l t yt o t r ans m i t t i ng a thr eatt o i nj ur e the per s on of anotherT he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on under18 U . S. C . § 3231. W e have j ur i s di ct i on 1 u n d e r2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 a n d 1 8 U . S . C . § 3742(a) . 2 w ith th e in ten t to e x to rt. H e w a s s e n ten c e d to 1 2 0 m o n th s’ im p riso n m e n t an d tim e ly ap p ea led. C arso n ’s att o rne yh as m o v ed to w ith d raw as c o u n sel u n d er A nders v.

1 C a lif o rn ia , 3 8 6 U . S . 7 3 8 (19 6 7 ), asse rt ing that all p o tential g rou n d s fo r ap p ea l are fr i vol ous . W e gr antt he mot i on and af fi r m C ar s on’ s s ent ence . I. B eca us e w e w r i t e s ol el yforthe part i es , w e r eci t e onl ythos e fa ct s nece s s aryt o our deci s i on. I n O ct ober2006, C ar s on s enta l ett ert o a M as s achus et t s l aw fi r m r epr es ent i ng Spr i ngfi el d C ol l ege, t he def endanti n a ci vi l s ui tfi l ed byC ar s on ( w ho w as di s m i s s ed fr om t he C ol l ege i n M ar ch 2005) . I n t hi s l et t er , C ar s on des cr i bed hi s fi r earm s tr ai ni ng and ac ces s t o w eapons , di s cus s ed the s hoot i ngs atC ol um bi ne H i gh School , and s ugges t ed t hats i m i l arevent s m i ghtoccuri f Spr i ngfi el d C ol l ege r efus ed t o payhi m $75, 000, re in s ta te h im a s a s tu d e n t, a n d g ra n t h im f re e tu itio n . A fede r al gr and j ur yr etur ned a tw o- counti ndi ctm entchar gi ng C ar s on w i t h ( 1) t r ans m i t t i ng i n i nt er s t at e comm er ce a thr eatt o i nj ur e the per s on of anotherw i t h t he i nt ent t o ext or tm oneyand othert hi ngs of val ue ( i n vi ol at i on of 18 § U . S. C . 875( b) ) ; and ( 2) t r ans m i t t i ng i n i nt er s t at e comm er ce a comm uni cat i on cont ai ni ng a thr eatt o i nj ur e another per s on ( i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 875( c) ) . I n J ul y2007, C ar s on pl ed gui l t yt o C ount O n e p u rs u a n t to a p le a a g re e m e n t. A ts ent enci ng, t he D i s t r i ctC our tadopt ed the conc l us i ons i n t he Pr es ent ence3

Inv esti g ati o n R ep o rtthat C arso n ’s of fe n se lev el w as 2 1 an d h is cri m inal h ist o ryca tego ry w as I V , r es ul t i ng i n a G ui del i ne r ange of 57 t o 71 m ont hs ’ i m pr i s onm ent . C ar s on re q u e s te d a d o w n w a rd v a ri a n c e f ro m th is ra n g e b a s e d o n h is h is to ry o f m e n ta l illn e s s . T h e G o v ern m en t r eq u ested an u p w ard d ep arture in C arso n ’s crim inal h ist o ryca tego ry p u rsua n t t o U . S . S . G . § 4 A 1 . 3 (a), arg u ing that the s eriou sn ess o f C arso n ’s crim inal rec o rd wa s s i g n i f

i c a n t l yu n d e r s t a t e d b yh i s c r i mi n a l h i s t o r yc a t e g o r yo f I V. T he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed C ar s on’ s r eques tfora dow nw ar d var i ance , and dec l i ned t o departupw ar dl yunder§ 4A 1. 3( a) . I ns t ead, the C our ti m pos ed an upw ar d var i ance of 49 m ont hs , fi ndi ng t hatC ar s on’ s cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egory( and the r es ul t i ng G ui del i ne r ange) “gr os s l yunder - r epr es entt he dange r. . . [thatC ar s on] pos e[s ] t o s oci ety . ” ( A pp. at 1 3 7 . ) C ar s on t i m el yappea l ed. A s not ed, hi s at t orneym oved t o w i t hdr aw and fi l ed a corr es pondi ng A nd ers br i ef. C ar s on w as not i fi ed of hi s r i ghtt o fi l e a pr o s e br i ef, buthe has fai l ed t o do s o. II. O urrul es pr ovi de that“[w ] her e, upon r evi ew of the di s t r i ctcour tr ecor d, tr i al 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 , couns el m ayfi l e a mot i on t o w i t hdr aw and s uppor t i ng br i ef pur s uantt o A nd ers . ” 3 d Ci r . L. A. R. 1 0 9 . 2 (a). If w e c o n cu r w ith tr ial co u n sel’s asse ssm en t, w e “ w il l gran t [th e] A nd ers m ot i on, and di s pos e of the appe al w i t houtappoi nt i ng new couns el . ” Id . A ccor di ngl y , our “i nq uiryi s. . . t w ofo l d: ( 1) w hethercou nsel adeq uatel yfulfi l l ed the rule’ s r equ i rem ents ;4

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 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 0 0 1 ). In h er A nd ers b rie f

, C a rso n ’s a tto rn e yid e n tifie s th re e p o ten tial g ro u n d s f o r a p p e a l: (1) w h ethe r th e G o v ern m en t brea ch ed the p lea a g ree m en t w h en itreq u ested an u p w ard d e p a rtu re p u rsu a n t to U .S .S .G . § 4 A 1 .3 (a ); (2 ) w h e th e r th e D istric t C o u rt a b u se d its di s cr et i on i n vary i ng upw ar d fr om the G ui del i nes r ange ( and r el at edl y , w hetherthe r es ul t i ng s ent ence w as s ubs t ant i vel yr eas onabl e) ; and ( 3) w hethercouns el w as i neff ect i ve forfai l i ng t o s eek a dow nw ar d departur e pur s uantt o U . S. S. G . § 5K 2. 13 bas ed on C a rs o n ’s d im in is h e d m e n ta l c a p a c ity. O urr evi ew of the r ecor d confi r m s couns el ’ s as s es s m entthatther e ar e no n o n frivo lou s issue s fo r ap p ea l. A s fo r th e f ir st i ssu e, w e a g ree that the G o v ern m en t’ s r eques tforan upw ar d departur e di d notvi ol at e the pl ea a gr eement . T he pl ea a gr eement d id n o t con tai n an yex p ress p rom ise b ythe G o v ern m en t no t t o see k an u p w ard d ep arture i n C ar s on’ s cr i m i nal hi s t or ycat egory ; r ather , i tm er el yadvi s ed C ar s on that , bas ed on the fac t s know n “pr i ort o t he pr epar at i on of the pr e- s ent ence r epor t , ” he “ s houl d expec t ” a G o v ern m en t r ec o m m en d ati o n “c o n sist en t w ith ” the G u idelines ran g e. (A p p . at 51 . ) M o re o v e r, th e p lea a g re e m e n t sp e c if ica llysta ted th a t th e D istric t C o u rt w a s n o t b o u n d to s ent ence C ar s on w i t hi n t he G ui del i nes r ange. T hus , the G overnm ent ’ s r eques tat s ent enci ng foran upw ar d departur e i n t he off ens e l evel cal cul at i on w as noti ncons i s t ent w i t h t he pl ea a gr eementorw hatC ar s on s houl d have “ r eas onabl yunder s t ood” i n ent er i ng in to th a t a g re e m e n t. U

ni t ed Stat es v. N

olan- C ooper , 1 5 5 F .3 d 2 2 1 , 2 3 6 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ).5

Second, w e agr ee thatt he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n i m pos i ng an upw ar d var i ance w hen s ent enci ng C ar s on t o 120 m ont hs ’ i m pr i s onm ent . T he C our tgave a l engthyexpl anat i on fori t s s ent ence , and found thatC ar s on’ s “depl or abl e” c r i m i nal r ecor d— w hi ch i ncl udes num er ous convi ct i ons foroffe ns es i nvol vi ng fi r earm s and vi ol ence , and “s pans a l i t t l e over30 y ear s ”— “demonstr at es thatthe thr eatof arr es tor con fi nem ent s eem i ng l ydo es not det er” C ars on . (A pp . at13 5– 37 . ) Th e C ou rtal so c o n sid e re d C a rso n ’s m e n tal h e a lth sta tu s— w h ich th e C o u rt a c k n o w led g e d w a s “ c e rta in ly a mi t i gat i ng fac t or , ” A pp. at138— butnot ed thatC ar s on had “c om m i t t [ed] the s ame t ype of dange r ous offe ns es [hi s ] ent i r e l i fe, even dur i ng t i m es w hen [he w as ] or der ed t o t ake m edi cat i ons ” forhi s m ent al i l l nes s . ( A pp. at138. ) I n t hi s cont ext , w e agr ee thatthe C our tgave “ r at i onal and meani ngful ” cons i der at i on t o t he r el evant18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) f a c to rs in im p o s in g its s e n te n c e . U ni t ed Stat es v. G r i er , 475 F. 3d 556, 571 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( en banc ). W e a lso a g re e th a t C a rso n ’s s e n ten c e w a s s u b sta n tiv e lyre a so n a b le, a s it “ f a lls w i t hi n t he br oad r ange of pos s i bl e s ent ence s thatcan be cons i der ed r eas onabl e i n l i ghtof t he § 3553( a) fac t or s . ” U nited S tates v. W

ise , 5 1 5 F . 3 d 2 0 7 , 2 1 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). Fi nal l y , w e t ake no pos i t i on on C ar s on’ s pot ent i al i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el c laim , as su c h a c laim typ ica llyis n o t p ro p e rlyp re se n ted a t th e d ire c t ap p e a l sta g e , an d in anyeventt he r ecor d her e i s i ns uffi ci entt o al l ow a det erm i nat i on of thi s i s s ue . See U ni t ed Stat es v. Thornton , 3 2 7 F . 3 d 2 6 8 , 2 7 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). C ouns el adequa t el yful fi l l ed the r equi r ement s of A nd ers. B eca us e ouri ndepende nt r evi ew of the r ecor d fai l s t o r evea l anynonfr i vol ous gr ound forappea l , w e gr antC ar s on i s her ebyadvi s ed that , underthe C r i m i nal J us t i ce A ct , hi s couns el i s not 2 obl i ged t o fi l e a pe t i t i on forr ehea r i ng i n t hi s C our tora pet i t i on fora w r i tof cert i orari in th e U n ite d S ta te s S u p re m e C o u rt . See 3 d C ir. L .A .R . 3 5 .4 ; 1 0 9 .2 (b ). If C a rso n w ish e s to pur s ue thes e ave nues , he mustdo s o pro se . C ar s on s houl d not e thatan or i gi nal and four t een c opi es of a pe t i t i on forr ehea r i ng en banc m us tbe fi l ed w i t hi n 14 day s of the entr yof j udgm ent , or , i f thatt i m e has pas s ed, he maypr om pt l yfi l e a mot i on t o enl ar ge t he t i m e fors uch fi l i ng. C ouns el pr om pt l ys hal l s end a c opyof thi s opi ni on and j udgm ent to A p p e llan t. 6 couns el ’ s m ot i on t o w i t hdr aw and af fi r m C ar s on’ s s ent ence . 2