2005 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 6-6-2005 

# U SA v . S ant an a 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 . 04-2857

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_2005

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 2005 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 . S ant an a" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1065. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/1065NOT 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. 04- 2857

UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. NAT I VI DAD S ANT ANA,

A ppel l ant ON APPEAL FROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT CO UR T F O R T H E E A S T E R N D IS T R IC T O F P E N N S Y L V A N IA ( D i s tr i ctC our tC r i m i nal N o. : 02- cr - 00801- 17) D istri ct C o u rtJu d g e: H o n . H arv eyB artl e, II I Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ar ch 29, 2005 B efore: A L ITO , S M ITH , and R O S E N N , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: J une 6, 2005)

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT P E R C U R I A M: T hi s i s an appe al bydefe ndantN at i vi dad Sant ana f r om a convi ct i on forcons pi r acy2

to d istrib u te a n d p o ss e ss w ith in ten t to d istrib u te o n e k ilo g ra m o r m o re o f h e ro in in vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 846. Sant ana pl ed gui l tyt o the cha r ge pur s uantt o a pl ea a gr e e ment . Couns e l fo rSa nt a na ha s fi l e d a br i e f u nd e rA nd e r s v. Cal i fo rni a , 38 6 U. S. 738 ( 1967) , s t at i ng that , aft ercar eful r evi ew of the r ecor d, he ca nnotr ai s e anym er i t or i ous i s s ues and thatthe appe al i s w hol l yfr i vol ous . W e al s o not e thatcouns el s ubm i t t ed a lette r to th e C o u rt a rg u in g f o r re se n ten c in g in lig h t o f th e S u p re m e C o u rt’s d e c isio n in U n it ed S tat es v . B o o k er, 16 0 L . E d . 2 d 6 2 1 , 5 4 3 U . S . ___ , 1 2 5 S . C t. 7 3 8 (20 0 5 ). W e a re s at i s fi ed thatcouns el has ful fi l l ed hi s A nder s obl i gat i ons . B eca us e the appe al i s fr i vol ous an d b ec au se S an tana is no t entit led to reli ef u n d er B o o k er, w e h ere b yg ran t cou n sel’s m o tio n to w ith d ra w a n d d ism iss th e a p p e a l. Sant ana i s pr ecl uded fr om br i ngi ng an appe al due t o a w ai vercont ai ned i n herpl ea a g re e m e n t. U n d e r th e ter m s o f th e a g re e m e n t, S a n tan a w a iv e d a ll d ire c t ap p e a ls e x c e p t in the ca s e thathers ent ence exce eded the s t atut orym axi m um orthe s ent enci ng j udge e rr o n e o u s ly d e p a rt e d u p w a rd f ro m th e o th e rw is e a p p lic a b le s e n te n c in g g u id e lin e ra n g e . T he s ent enci ng courtr evi ew ed thi s pr ovi s i on w i th Sant ana thor oughl ydur i ng the R ul e 11 col l oquy . Sant ana w as s ent ence d t o 135 m onths - - the mi ni m um s ent ence underthe a p p lica b le g u id e lin e . A lth o u g h S a n tan a c laim s th a t h e r b a se o f f e n se lev e l w a s im p ro p e rly d eterm ined , the re co rd sh o w s tha t she sti p u lat ed to the fa ct th at he r of fe n se in v o lved m o re than 30 ki l ogr ams of her oi n and thatthe gui del i ne r ange w as pr oper l ycal cul at ed. See U .S .S .G . § 2 D 1 .1 (a )( 3 ).3

“W ai vers of app eal s, i f enter ed int o k no w i ng l yand vo l un t ari l y , are val i d, un l ess theyw o rk a m iscarri ag e o f ju sti ce . ” U n it ed S tat es v . K h att ak , 2 7 3 F . 3 d 5 5 7 , 5 6 3 (3d C ir . 2001) . Sant ana makes no ar gum entas t o w hythe w ai verof appe al s houl d notbe e n f o rc e d , a n d th is f

a c t a lo n e is s u f

f ic ie n t to d is m is s th e a p p e a l f o r l a c k o f

ju ri s d ic tio n . H erpr o s e br i ef r ai s es onl yan i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el cl ai m and a c l ai m thather sent ence v i olat es the S i xth A m end m ent r i gh tt o a jurytri al , neither of w hich present s a n o n -f riv o lo u s is su e th a t ca n b e a d d re ss e d o n d ire c t ap p e a l. S a n tan a ’s a ss e rte d rig h t to re lief u n d e r B o o k e r d o e s n o t re q u ire th is C o u rt to d isre g a rd h e r w a iv e r o f a p p e a l. O u r c o u rt h a s jo in e d f o u r o th e r c o u rts o f

a p p e a ls in hol di ng that“w her e a c r i m i nal defe ndanthas vol unt ar i l yand know i ngl yent er ed i nt o a pl ea a gr eementi n w hi ch he ors he w ai ves the r i ghtt o appea l , the def endanti s notent i t l ed to rese n tenc ing in li g h t of B o o k er.” U n it ed S tat es v . L o ck ett , 4 0 6 F . 3 d 2 0 7 , 2 1 4 (3d C ir . 2005) . B eca us e Sant ana ha s notar gued thatherw ai verof appe al w as i nvol unt aryor unknow i ng, herappea l on t hes e gr ounds m us tbe r ej ect ed. A l though w e ac know l edge thatSant ana mi ghthave r ece i ved a l es s ers ent ence underthe pos t - B ookers ent enci ng re g im e , en f

o rc in g a p lea a g re e m e n t u n d e r th e se c irc u m sta n c e s d o e s n o t ef f e c t a m iscarri ag e o f ju sti ce . S ee U n it ed S tat es v . B rad y , 3 9 7 U . S . 7 4 2 , 7 5 7 (19 7 0 ). Fi nal l y , Sant ana’ s i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el cl ai m s ar e pr ematur e. Sant ana does notcl ai m thathercouns el ’ s al l egedl ydefi ci entper form ance i n anyw ayi m pact ed her d ec isi o n to w aive h er righ t t o ap p ea l, b u t r athe r th at sh e w as p rejud iced b yco u n sel’ss t at ement s r egar di ng hers ent enci ng expos ur e and hi s fai l ur e t o r ai s e ar gum ent s on appea l

bas ed on B l akel yv. W as hi ngt on, 159 L . E d. 2d 403, 542 U . S. ___, 124 S. C t . 2531 (2004 ). B ecause the r ecord d oes no tcon t ai n the i nfo rm at i on necessaryt o d eci de these cl ai m s , w e w i l l fol l ow ourus ual pr act i ce of notdeci di ng them on di r ectappea l . See U n it ed S tat es v . T h o rnto n , 3 2 7 F . 3 d 2 6 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). F o r t h e f o re g o in g re a s o n s , w e w ill a f f ir m th e ju d g m e n t o f

c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e . D efe ns e couns el ’ s m ot i on t o w i thdr aw i s gr ant ed.