2008 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 10-10-2008 

# U SA v . D iggs 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 . 06-4706

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_2008

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 2008 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 . Di ggs " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 381. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/3811

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 C as e N o: 06- 4706 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. A RC H I E L. D I G G S, 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 i s t r i ctC our tN o. 05- C R - 477 D i s t r i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e Fr eda W ol fs on Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

Sept ember12, 2008 B e f o re : M c K E E , S M IT H , a n d W E IS , C i r cui tJudges

Fi l ed: O ct ober10, 2008 OP I NI ON S M IT H , C i r cui tJudge . O n M ar ch 13, 2006, a j ur yw as s el ect ed t o det erm i ne w hetherA r chi e L. D i ggs w as g u iltyo f o n e c o u n t o f

c o n sp irin g to d istrib u te 5 0 g ra m s o r m o re o f c o c a in e b a se in vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 846, and tw o count s of di s t r i but i ng cr ack c ocai ne i n vi ol at i on ofT he D i s t r i ctC our texer ci s ed j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3231. W e have 1 ju ri s d ic tio n u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 4 2 (a ). See U ni t ed Stat es v. C ooper , 437 F. 3d 324, 327- 2 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). 2 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) and ( b) ( 1) ( A ) . O n t he s econd da yof tr i al , befor e t es t i m onybegan, D i ggs ent er ed an ope n pl ea t o t he § 846 cons pi r acyoffe ns e. T he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ct C our tfort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s eydi s m i s s ed, on governm entm ot i on, count s tw o and th re e o f th e in d ic tm e n t, w h ic h c h a rg e d h im w ith d is tr ib u tio n o f c ra c k c o c a in e . T h e re a f ter , D ig g s a ss e rte d in lette rs to th e D istric t C o u rt th a t h e w a s n o t sa tisf ied w ith couns el and thathe had f el trus hed t o pl ead gui l t y . A ts ent enci ng, D i ggs ’ new couns el br oughtt he l et t ert o t he C our t ’ s at t ent i on i n t he eve ntD i ggs w ant ed t o m ove t o w i t hdr aw hi s pl ea be for e s ent enci ng. W hen the C our tas ked D i ggs w hetherhe w ant ed t o abi de by h is p lea , D ig g s re sp o n d e d th a t h e w a s “ p lea d in g g u ilty ,” a n d a f f irm e d th a t h e w a n ted to m aintain h is gu il typ lea. T h e se n tenc ing h ea ri n g p roc ee d ed , an d af ter th e g o v ern m en t’ s p re s e n ta tio n o f

e v id e n c e , th e D is tr ic t C o u rt s e n te n c e d D ig g s to , i nt eral i a, 154 m onths of i m pr i s onm ent , a puni s hm entt hatcons t i tut ed a dow nw ar d var i ance fr om the gui del i ne r ange of 188 t o 235 m ont hs . T hi s t i m el yappea l fol l ow ed. 1 D i ggs ’ couns el fi l ed an a ppel l at e br i ef a nd m oved t o w i t hdr aw pur s uantt o A nd ers v . C a lif o rn ia , 386 U . S. 738 ( 1967) . I n A nd ers , the Supr eme C our ts t at ed thatthe

“ c o n stitu tio n a l re q u ire m e n t o f su b sta n tial e q u a litya n d f a ir p ro c e ss ” m e a n s th a t ap p e llate cou nsel m ustactas an ad vo cat e for t he d efen dan t . 38 6 U . S . at74 4. T hu s, cou nsel ’s ro le a s a d v o c a te r e q u ire s th a t h e su p p o rt h is c lien t’s a p p e a l to th e b e st o f h is3

ab il ity . O f c o u rse, i f c o u n sel find s h is case to b e w h o ll yfrivo lou s, af ter a con sci enti ou s exam i nati on of it , he sho uld so adv i se the co urtand request p e r m i s s i o n t o w i t h d r a w . T h a tr e q u e s tm u s t , h o w e v e r , b e a c c o m p a n i e d b y a br i ef r efe r r i ng t o anyt hi ng i n the r ecor d t hatm i ghtar guabl ys uppor tthe a p p e a l. I d. I n U n itedS ta tes v . Y

o u la , 241 F. 3d 296, 300 ( 3d C i r . 2001) , w e expl ai ned thatan A nd ers b rie f

m u st d e m o n stra te th a t co u n se l h a s “ th o ro u g h lye x a m in e d th e re c o rd in s ear ch of a ppeal abl e i s s ues , ” and i tm us t“expl ai n w hythe i s s ues ar e fr i vol ous . ” A ccor di ngl y , ouri nqui r yi s t w ofol d: ( 1) w hethercouns el adequa t el yful fi l l ed the r equi r ement s of A nd ers ; an d (2 ) “ w h e th e r a n in d e p e n d e n t re v iew o f th e re c o rd p re se n ts anynonfr i vol ous i s s ues . ” I d. ( ci t i ng U

n itedS ta tes v . M

a rv in , 2 1 1 F . 3 d 7 7 8 , 7 8 0 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 )); see al

so A nd ers , 3 8 6 U . S . at 74 4 (ex p lai n ing that the c o u rtm u st pro ce ed , “a fter a f u ll e x a m in a tio n o f

a ll th e p ro c e e d in g s , to d e c id e w h e th e r t h e c a s e is w h o lly f ri v o lo u s .” ). W e ar e s at i s fi ed thatcouns el thor oughl yexami ned the r ecor d fori s s ues of ar guabl e mer i tand ful fi l l ed the r equi r ement s of A nd ers . C ouns el appr opr i at el yaddr es s ed tw o o f th e iss u e s th a t m a yb e ra ise d f o llo w in g th e e n tryo f

a n u n c o n d iti o n a l g u iltyp lea : th e v a lid ity o f

th e g u ilty p le a ; a n d th e le g a lity o f th e s e n te n c e . See U

ni t ed Stat es v. B r oce , 488 U . S. 563, 574- 76 ( 1989) . A s couns el expl ai ned, the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s pl ea c ol l oquy s at i s fi ed the r equi r ement s of Feder al R ul e of Cri m i nal Pr ocedur e 11. I ndeed, D i ggs aff i r m ed hi s gui l tatt he s ent enci ng hear i ng, and hi s pr o s e br i ef di d notdi s put e theW hen appe l l at e couns el fi l es a mot i on t o w i t hdr aw pur s uantt o A nd ers , 386 U . S. 738 2 (19 6 7 ), o u r l o ca l ru le af fo rds th e a p p ell an t an o p p o rtu n ityto f il e a p ro se b ri ef. 3 d C ir . L . A . R . 1 0 9 . 2 (a). 4 val i di t yof hi s gui l t ypl ea. 2 In h is p ro se b rie f

, D ig g s d id a rg u e th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d a t se n ten c in g . H is couns el , how ever , as s er t s t hatt her e i s no bas i s forchal l engi ng hi s s ent ence . C ouns el expl ai ned thatt he D i s t r i ctC our tcompl i ed w i th t he pr ocedur al r equi r ement s of R ul e 32, corr ect l ycomput ed the advi s or ygui del i ne r ange, and meani ngful l ycons i der ed the s ent enci ng fac t or s s etfor t h i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) , i ncl udi ng the di s par i t ybetw een po w der cocaine and cocaine base. Inasm uch as the D i stri ctC ou rtgrant ed D i gg s a dow nw ar d var i ance fr om t he gui del i ne r ange, couns el s ubm i t t ed thathe had no ba s i s for ar gui ng t hatt he s ent ence w as unr eas onabl e. W e agr ee. O urr evi ew s how s thatthe D i s t r i ctC our tt hought ful l ycons i der ed D i ggs ’ ci r cumst ance s and i m pos ed a s ent ence t hat s h e h o p e d w o u ld b e a d e te rr e n t to f u rt h e r c ri m in a l a c tiv ity f o r a m a n o f

D ig g s ’ a g e . D i ggs t akes i s s ue w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s fai l ur e t o appl ya bey ond- a- r eas onabl ed o u b t b u rd e n o f

p ro o f a t se n ten c in g , an d c o n ten d s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in its det erm i nat i on of the amountof cr ack c ocai ne ati s s ue and i t s as s es s m entof a tw o l evel enhanc ementforhi s r ol e i n t he off ens e underU . S. S. G . § 3B 1. 1. W e fi nd no err ori n the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s appl i cat i on of the pr eponder ance of the evi dence s t andar d i n l i ghtof our pr ece dent s i n U

ni t ed Stat es v. C ooper , 437 F. 3d 324, 330 ( 3d C i r . 2006) , and U ni t ed Stat es v. G r i er , 47 5 F . 3d 55 6, 56 5 (3d C i r. 20 06 ) ( en b anc). D i gg s’ argum ents sugg estO urdeci s i on t odayi s r ender ed w i t houtpr ej udi ce t o D i ggs as s ert i ng w hat everr i ght s he 3 m ayhave t o s eek a r educe d s ent ence i n t he D i s t r i ctC our tpur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3 5 8 2 (c )( 2 ) i n lig h t o f

th e a m e n d m e n ts to th e s e n te n c in g g u id e lin e s f o r c ra c k c o c a in e . See A m en d m en t 70 6 to U . S . S . G . § 2 D 1 . 1 (ef fe cti v e N o v em b er 1 , 2 0 0 7 ). 5 t hatt he comput at i on of hi s gui del i ne r ange vi ol at ed the t erm s on w hi ch he a gr eed t o pl ead gu i l t y . T his con t enti on l acks m eri t , ho w ever, as there w as no p l ea agreem ent i n thi s case governi ng ei t hert he amountof the cr ack c ocai ne orthe appl i cabi l i t yof the r ol e i n t he o ff en se e n h an ce m en t. B ec au se th ere is sup p o rtin the rec o rd f o r th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s cal cul at i on of the s ent enci ng gui del i ne r ange, w e conc l ude thatther e i s no bas i s for d is tu rb in g th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s s e n te n c e . I n s um , ourow n i ndepende ntr evi ew of the r ecor d fai l s t o r evea l anynonfr i vol ous iss u e s f o r a p p e a l. A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill g ra n t co u n se l’s m o tio n to w ith d ra w p u rsu a n t to A nd ers and af

fi r m t he j udgm entof the D i s t r i ctC our t . W e ce r t i fythatthe i s s ues pr es ent ed i n t he appe al l ack l egal m er i tand thus do notr equi r e the fi l i ng of a pe t i t i on forw r i tof ce rt iorari w ith the S u p rem e C o u rt . 3 d C ir . L . A . R . 1 0 9 . 2 (b). 3