2004 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
11-3-2004 

# U S A v . M c C l a r y 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 . 03-4761

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t 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 sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 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 sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

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

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" U SA v . M c C l a r y " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 147. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/147NOT PRE CEDENT IAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT
No. 03-4761
UNITED S TATES OF AMERI CA

v. JER OME MCCLARY,

Appellant
On A ppeal from the Un ited States District Co urt for the M iddle D istrict of P enns ylvania (D.C. Crim. No. 03-00046) Honorable James M. Munley , Dist rict Judge
Submitte d under Third Ci rcuit LAR 34.1(a) October 29, 2004 BE FO RE : SC IRI CA , Chief Judge , and FIS HE R a nd G RE EN BE RG , Circu it Judges (Fil ed: November 3, 2004)
OPINI ON OF THE COURT
GR EE NB ER G, Circu it Judge
. Jerome McClary appeals f rom a judgment of convi ction and sentence entere d on December 9, 2003, f

ollowing hi s plea of gui lty in thi s cri minal cas e. His at torneyhas file d a brief

pursuant to An ders v . Califo rnia , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 ( 1967), and has2

file d a motion purs uant to And ers requesting that the court

grant hi m leave to wit

hdraw as appell ate counse l. I n additi on, McClary has fil ed a pro se brief addr essing t he merit s of his appeal . McClary pleaded gui lty to the c onspira cy count of a two-count

indict ment charg ing h im in th e first co unt w ith con spirac y to distribute and p osses s with intent to dist ribute in exces s of 500 grams of cocai ne in viol ation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and i n the
sec ond cou nt w ith p oss essio n w ith in tent t o di strib ute in exc ess o f 50 0 gr am s of coc aine
. 21 U.S.C. § 841(a )(1); 18 U.S.C. § 2. At the sentencing it was conceded that, based on his prior record and the offense here McClary is a career cri minal. McClary sought a departure from thi s designation on the the ory that it ov errepr esen ted his c rimina l history. Th e cou rt recog nized that it cou ld depart on th is basis but declined to do so. T he gov ernmen t, howev er, moved to depart pursuant to U.S.S. G. § 5K1.1 and 18 U.S.C. § 3553( e) to reflect McClary’s substant

ial assis tance. The court gr anted this moti on and depart ed downwards 3 levels from the offense level of 31 to a level of 28 which , with his criminal h istory category of VI, reduced his sentencing range fro m 18 8 to 235 mon ths to 140 to 1 75 m onths. Th e court then dep arted an ad ditional 4 levels to level 24 yielding a range of 100 to 1 25 m onths. It imposed a custodial s entence of 108 months foll owed by a four- year term of supervised relea se. McClarythen appeal ed. We deal firs t with a hous ekeeping matter. I nsofar as we can ascert ain, the docket sheets do not indi cate that the second count of the indi ctment has been dismis sed even3

though the parti es’ pl ea agreement provides that “ [a]fte r sent encing, the Unite d States will move for

dismis sal of any

remaini ng counts, ” App. at 22, and the j udgment of conviction and sentence reci tes t hat “[t ]he remai ning count of the indi ctment has been dismis sed upon Government’s motion. ” Id . at 1. If t he dist rict court has not dis missed the sec ond coun t the go vern men t may m ove f or its dism issal afte r com pletion of this appeal. On the other hand if the court has dismis sed the count the docket

sheets should be
correc ted to re flect the dism issal. On the m erits w e w ill affirm insof ar as M cCla ry seem s to claim that he wa s not a
career offender as we re

ject this contention inas much as he had two pri or felony
conv ictions w hich w ere sep arate a nd n ot related . To th e exte nt that M cCla ry is chall enging the court’ s refusa l to depart further, we do not have jurisdi ction f or the dist rict court recognized t

hat it had the authority under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3 “ to furt her dep art, b ut . . . d id n ot fe el it is w arra nted in th is situ ation .” A pp. a t 15 5. See United States v. Parker , 902 F .2d 22 1 (3d Cir. 19 90); United States v. Denardi , 892 F.2d 269 ( 3d Ci r. 198 9) . C ons eq ue nt ly , w e g ra nthi s a ttor ne y ’s motio n t o wi th dr aw. The judgment of convi ction and sentence entere d on December 9, 2003, wil l be affirmed.