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. 09- 2626 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. H E R B E R T R . H IL L , J r., A p p e llan t.

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 . N o. 2- 95- cr - 00412- 001) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H on. W i l l i am H . Y ohn Subm i tt ed underT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

on J ul y13, 2010 B efor e: FU E N T E S, A L D I SE R T and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J ul y20, 2010) O P I N I O N RO TH , C i r cui tJ udge: H erbertH i l l appea l s the r evoca t i on of hi s s upervi s ed r el eas e. H i s couns el , aft er fi l i ng thi s appea l , m oved t o w i thdr aw pur s uantt o A n de rs v . Ca lif o rn ia , 386 U . S. 738T he D i s tr i ctC ourthad j ur i s di ct i on under18 U . S. C . § 3231, and w e have j ur i s di ct i on 1 under18 U . S. C . § 3742 and 28 U . S. C . § 1291. 2 ( 1 9 6 7 ) . W e wi l l g r a n tc o u n s e l ’ s mo t i o n t o wi th d r a w a n d a f f i rm. 1 H ill f a c e d re v o c a tio n o f

h is s u p e rv is e d re le a s e f o r f a ilin g tw o b re a th a lyze r t e s ts . A ft era hea r i ng, the D i s tr i ctC ourtconcl uded thatH i l l had bee n dr i nki ng beer , notus i ng S c o p e , as H ill c laim e d , o n th e d a yo f th e b re a th a lyz e r te st a n d h a d th e re b yv io late d b o th th e p o lic yo f

h is re s id e n tia l r e e n tryp ro g ra m a n d th e te rm s o f h is s u p e rv is e d re le a s e . B ecaus e the courtdet erm i ned thatH i l l had l i ed aboutus i ng Scope, i ts ent ence d H i l l t o 14 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm ent , the upperend of the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes r ange. H i l l appea l ed, and hi s couns el fi l ed an A nd ers br i ef. H i l l then fi l ed a pro se br i ef in su p p o rto f h is ap p ea l, an d the g o v ern m en t has also fil ed a b ri ef su p p o rt ing co u n sel’s A nders m ot i on. Ou ri n q u i ryi n t o th e me r i t s o f c o u n s e l ’ s mo t i o n t o wi th d r a w f o c u s e s o n two ques t i ons . Fi r s t , di d couns el adequa t el yful fi l l the r equi r ement s of the Thi r d C i r cui tL ocal App e l l a t e Rul e 1 0 9 . 2 ( a ) ? U n itedS ta tes v . Y

o u la , 2 4 1 F .3 d 2 9 6 , 3 0 0 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). Se c o n d , d o e s “ a n i n d e p e n d e n tr e v i e w of th e r e c o r d p r e s e n t [ ] a n yn o n f r i v o l o u s i s s u e s ” ? I d. T hi r d C i r cui tL ocalA ppel l at e R ul e 109. 2( a) pr ovi des that , “[w ] her e, upon r evi ew 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 upport i ng br i ef. ”3

T o f u lf ill th is ru le’ s re q u ire m e n ts, c o u n se l m u st s a tisf yth e C o u rt th a t h e “ h a s th o ro u g h ly ex am ined the re co rd in sea rch o f a p p ea lable issu es” an d m u st “ex p lai n w h ythe issu es a re fr i vol ous . ” Y

o u la , 2 4 1 F . 3 d at 30 0 . C o u n sel’s brief “n ee d n o t r aise a n d reject ev ery p o ss ib le c laim ,” b u t “m u st m e e t th e ‘c o n sc ien tio u s e x a m in a tio n ’ sta n d a rd se t f o rth in A nders . ” I

d. F rom o u r rev iew , w e c o n clud e tha t cou n sel co n scien ti o u slyex am ined the re co rd a n d e x p l a i n e d wh yHi l l ’ s p o s s i b l e c l a i ms l a c k e de v e n a r g u a b l e me r i t . I n a d d i t i o n , we hav e revi ew ed H i l l ’s pro se cl ai m s . H i l l r ai s ed s ever al i s s ues conce rni ng the D i s tr i ct C ourt ’ s cr edi bi l i tyfi ndi ngs : ( 1) the courterr ed i n det erm i ni ng thatthe br eathal y zer m achi ne w as r el i abl e, ( 2) the courtfai l ed t o bal ance al l the evi dence atthe hea r i ng, ( 3) the courtfai l ed t o exami ne w hetherH i l l ’ s confe s s i on t o the pr obat i on offi cerw as coer ced, and ( 4) the courterr oneous l ycr edi t ed the pr obat i on offi cer ’ s t es t i m onyw i thout c o n sid e rin g h is ra c ial p re ju d ice a g a in st H ill . H ill ’s f irst th re e c laim s a re w ith o u t ar g u a b le m er i t . T he r aci al pr ej udi ce a l l egat i on i s al s o w i thoutar guabl e mer i t , as i tw as contr adi ct ed byH i l l ’ s t es t i m onythatthe pr obat i on offi cerhad tr eat ed hi m fai r l yand “helped hi m qui t e a bi t . ” O u r in d e p e n d e n t re v iew a lso lea d s u s to c o n c lu d e th a t th e re is n o a rg u a b le m e rit to H i l l ’ s othercl ai m s of i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el , cruel and i nhum an tr eatm ent , and i m pr opers ent enci ng. I neff ect i ve as s i s t ance cl ai m s , furtherm or e, ar e pr efe r abl ybr ought in a c o lla te ra l r e v ie w u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 , n o t in a d ir e c t a p p e a l. M as s ar o v. U

ni ted4

States , 5 3 8 U .S . 5 0 0 , 5 0 4 (2 0 0 3 ); U ni ted States v. Thornton , 327 F. 3d 268, 271- 72 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). Forthe above s t at ed r eas ons , w e conc l ude thatcouns el cons ci ent i ous l yexami ned the r ecor d and expl ai ned w hyH i l l ’ s appea l i s fr i vol ous . O uri ndepende ntr evi ew of the r e c o r d l i k e w i s e l e a d s u s t o c o n c l u d e th a tH i l l ’ s c l a i m s a r e w i th o u tm e r i t . A c c o r d i n g l y, w e w ill g ra n t co u n se l’s m o tio n to w ith d ra w a n d a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.