2007 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 7-3-2007 

# U SA v . M at o s 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 . 06-3578

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_2007

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 2007 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 . M at os " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 813. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/813NOT 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. 06- 3578

____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. H ER CY M A TO 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 f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 05- cr - 00392) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Sy l vi a H . R ambo

____________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 18, 2007 B e f o re : M c K E E , F IS H E R a n d C H A G A R E S , C i r cui tJudges .

( Fi l ed: J ul y3, 2007 )

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________ F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudge . H er cyM at os appea l s hi s J ul y21, 2006 s ent ence of 120 m ont hs aft erhe pl eade d gui l tyt o one countof pos s es s i on w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e 50 gr ams orm or e of c ocai ne bas e i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) . Pr es ent l y , M at os ’ s couns el m oves t o w i t hdr aw2

r epr es ent at i on pur s uantt o A n d e rs v . C a lif o rn ia , 386 U . S. 738 ( 1967) , and has fi l ed a s uppor t i ng br i ef a s s ert i ng t hatno nonfr i vol ous i s s ues can be pr es ent ed upon appe al . For the reasons t he fo l l ow , w e w i l l grantcou nsel ’s A nd ers m ot i on and af fi r m the D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s j udgm entof s ent ence . I. A s w e w r i t e onl yfort he part i es w ho ar e fa m i l i arw i t h t he fa ctual cont extand the p ro c e d u ra l h is to ry o f

th is c a s e , w e w ill s e t f

o rt h o n ly th o s e f

a c ts n e c e s s a ry to o u r a n a lysis . O n M ar ch 3, 2006, pur s uantt o a w r i t t en agr eementw i t h t he G overnm ent , M at os pl eade d gui l tyt o one countof pos s es s i on w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e 50 orm or e gr ams of coc ai ne bas e, and w ai ved hi s r i ghtt o appea l hi s convi ct i on and s ent ence . D ur i ng s ent enci ng, t he D istric t C o u rt c a lcu late d a b a se o f f e n se lev e l o f

3 4 , tak in g in to a c c o u n t th e a p p lica b le U nit ed S t at es Sen t encing G uidel i ne (“G uidel i nes”) for a 21 U . S . C . § 8 41 (a) (1) off ense an d a tw o -l ev el i n cre ase fo r th e p o sses sion o f tw o firearm s. M atos then ask ed fo r a f o u rl evel departur e t o m at ch thatgi ven t o hi s co- defe ndant , butthe D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed that r eques tbeca us e M at os di d nott es t i fyi n a j urytr i al w hi l e coope r at i ng w i t h t he G overnm ent , as hi s co- defe ndanthad done. I ns t ead, the D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed a thr eel evel dow nw ard dep arture for M at os’s accep t ance o f res po nsi bil i t y , bri ng i ng the b ase offe ns e l evel t o 31. T hi s r es ul t ed i n an advi s oryG ui del i nes r ange of 110 t o 137 m ont hs i m pr i s onm ent . A ccor di ngl y , t he D i s t r i ctC our ti m pos ed a 120- m ont h s ent ence , theI n ourr ece ntdeci s i on i n U n itedS ta tes v . G w in n e tt , 4 8 3 F . 3 d 2 0 0 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ), 1 w e expl ai ned thatw e do have j ur i s di ct i on overappea l s even w her e, as her e, the def endant h a s w a iv e d h is ri g h t to a p p e a l. I d. at203 ( “Thi s C our thas both s t atut oryand cons t i tut i onal s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on overappea l s w hen a c r i m i nal defe ndanthas w a iv e d h is a p p e llate rig h ts in a n e n f o rc e a b le p lea a g re e m e n t.”). N o n e th e les s, w e h e ld th a t“ we wi l l n o te x e r c i s e t h a tj u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w th e me r i t s o f [ s u c h a n a p p e a l ] i f

we concl ude that[the def

endant ] know i ngl yand vol unt ar i l yw ai ved h[i s ] r i ghtt o appea l unl es s t he r es ul tw oul d w or k a mi s carr i age of j us t i ce. ” I

d. A s the i ns t antcas e w as fi l ed pr i ort o ouropi ni on i n G w in n e tt , how ever , nei t herdefe ns e couns el northe G overnm ent has br i efe d t he i s s ue of w hethert he w ai verher e w as know i ng and vol unt ary , norhas t he G overnm entchal l enged M at os ’ s r i ghtt o appea l hi s s ent ence . T hus , al t hough a r evi ew of the r ecor d does notr ai s e anyconce r ns r egar di ng the know i ng and vol unt arynatur e of M a t o s ’ s wa i v e r , we c h o o s e i n t h i s i n s t a n c e t o l o o k t o th e me r i t s o f th e p o s s i b l e c l a i ms M a to s m ig h t h a v e o n a p p e a l. 3 s ta tu to ry m in im u m f

o r a v io la tio n o f

2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 (a )( 1 ). See 2 1 U. S . C. § 8 4 1 (b)(1 )(A )(i ii ). Fol l ow i ng t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s j udgm entof s ent ence , M at os fi l ed a pr o s e not i ce of app eal on Jul y28 , 20 06 . H i s coun sel then fi l ed thi s m oti on t o w i t hd raw . W e exerci se juri sd ict ion p u rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 an d 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 7 4 2 (a). 1 II. I n A n d e rs v . C a lif

o rn ia , the S u p re m e C o u rt h e ld th a t if c o u n se l “f in d s [ a n a p p e a l] t o b e w ho l l yfri vo l ou s, aft er a consci enti ou s exam i nati on ” of the record, he sho uld “so a d v ise th e c o u rt a n d re q u e st p e rm iss io n to w ith d ra w .” 3 8 6 U .S . at 7 4 4 . C o u n se l m a yf ile a mot i on t o w i t hdr aw and a s uppor t i ng A nd ers br i ef i f, upon r evi ew of the r ecor d, couns el b eli ev es th at th ere are n o issue s o f m eritto b e re v iew ed u p o n ap p ea l. L . A . R . 1 0 9 . 2 (a). In the b ri ef , co u n sel m u st “sati sfythe c o u rtthat h e o r she h as th o rou g h lysco u red the re co rd4

i n s ear ch of a ppeal abl e i s s ues ” and mustal s o “expl ai n . . . w hythe i s s ues ar e fr i vol ous . ” U n itedS ta tes v . M

a rv in , 2 1 1 F . 3 d 7 7 8 , 7 8 0 -81 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). W e e v alua te co u n sel’s A nd ers b ri ef

to d eterm ine “ (1) w h ethe r co u n sel ad eq u atelyfu lfi ll ed the [ loca l] rule’s r equi r ement s ; and ( 2) w hetheran i ndepende ntr evi ew of the r ecor d pr es ent s any nonfr 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 ). A. U ndert he fi r s tpr ong of thi s i nqui r y , couns el m us tpr es ents uffi ci enti nform at i on “t o s at i s fyt he courtt hatcouns el has thor oughl yexami ned the r ecor d i n s ear ch of appea l abl e i s s ues , and . . . expl ai n[ed] w hythe i s s ues ar e fr i vol ous . ” I d. I n hi s br i ef, couns el r ai s es a s i ngl e pos s i bl e i s s ue forappea l – w hetherM at os ’ s s ent ence w as rea so n ab le un d er U

ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) – and s uffi ci ent l yexpl ai ns w hyt his i ssue i s fr i vo l ou s. H aving revi ew ed co un sel ’s bri ef an d acco m pan y i ng m at eri al s, w e c o n clud e tha t he h as sa ti sfied the re q u ir em en ts of L . A . R . 1 0 9 . 2 (a). B. A fter co n clud ing that co u n sel h as sa ti sfied the re q u ir em en ts of L . A . R . 1 0 9 . 2 (a), w e musti ndepende nt l yr evi ew t he r ecor d and det erm i ne w hetheranynonfr i vol ous i s s ues exi s tforpurpos es of appe al . A n appea l i s fr i vol ous as a mat t erof l aw w her e “none of the l egal poi nt s [ar e] ar guabl e on thei rm er i t s . ” Ne i t z ke v . Wi l l i a ms , 490 U . S. 319, 325 ( 1989) . I n undert aki ng t hi s i ndepende ntr evi ew , “w her e an A nd ers b ri ef init ial lyap p ea rs to b e a d e q u a te o n its f

a c e , the p ro p e r c o u rse is f o r th e a p p e llate c o u rt to b e g u id e d in5

r evi ew i ng t he r ecor d byt he A nd ers br i ef i t s el f. ” Y o u la , 2 4 1 F .3 d a t 3 0 1 . A “ c o m p lete s c o u ri n g o f

th e re c o rd ” is u n n e c e s s a ry. I d. B ecause w e fi nd cou nsel ’s A nd ers br i ef t o be a d e q u a t e o n i t s f

a c e , w e a r e g u i d e d b y th a tb r i e f i n o u ri n q u i r y. A s an i ni t i al m att er , w e not e that“[t ] hi s [C ] our tdoes nothave j ur i s di ct i on overan a p p e a l o f a d istric t co u rt’s e x e rc ise o f d isc re tio n w h e th e r, o r b yh o w m u c h , to g ra n t a dow nw ar d departur e. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. D enar di , 8 9 2 F .2 d 2 6 9 , 2 7 2 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 9 ); s ee al s o U ni t ed Stat es v. C ooper , 437 F. 3d 324, 332- 33 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . A s s uch, ther e i s no m eri tt o an ypo ssi ble ar gu m ent r egardi ng the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s decis i on t o g rantM at os a thr ee- l evel dow nw ar d departur e r atherthan the four - l evel departur e he r eques t ed. In a d d it ion , w e c o n clud e tha t th ere is no co lorab le arg u m en t th at M atos ’s 1 2 0 - mo n th s e n t e n c e i s u n r e a s o n a b l e . Wh e n r e v i e wi n g a s e n t e n c e f o rr e a s o n a b l e n e s s , we cons i der( 1) w hethert he G ui del i nes r ange w as pr oper l ycal cul at ed, ( 2) w hetherthe D i s tr i ctC our tpr oper l yrul ed on anyform al m ot i ons fordepartur e, and ( 3) w hetherthe D is tr ic t C o u rt p ro p e rl ye x e rc is e d its d is c re tio n b yc o n s id e ri n g th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f a c to rs . U ni t ed Stat es v. G unt er , 4 6 2 F . 3 d 2 3 7 , 2 4 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). In r eaching M at os’s sent ence, the D i stri ctC ou rtdid not err on ei t her of the fi rs t tw o p ro n g s, a n d w e c o n c lu d e th a t itg a v e p ro p e r c o n sid e ra tio n to th e f a c to rs o u tli n e d in § 3553( a) of the G ui del i nes . M at os had mul t i pl e pr i orconvi ct i ons and had a dj us t ed poor l yt o pr i orper i ods of s upervi s i on. Fur t her , the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s ul t i m at e s ent ence w as th e s ta tu to ry m in im u m f o r t h e c ri m e to w h ic h h e p le a d e d g u ilty. See U ni t ed Stat es v.A s a r es ul t , w e conc l ude thati ti s notnece s s aryt o appoi ntcouns el t o fi l e a 2 pet i t i on forr ehea r i ng i n t hi s C our tora pet i t i on forw r i tof ce r t i or ar i i n t he U ni t ed St at es S u p re m e C o u rt o n M a to s ’s b e h a lf. See L . A . R . 1 0 9 . 2 (b). 6 R aad , 4 0 6 F .3 d 1 3 2 2 , 1 3 2 3 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (“ [ T ]h e re is n o m e rit to R a a d ’s c laim th a t h is s ent ence i s uncons t i tut i onal i n l i ghtof U ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker. . . [bec aus e] R aad w as s ent ence d t o t he mandat or ym i ni m um s ent ence bas ed on the fa ct s t o w hi ch he pl eade d g u ilty .”); U

ni t ed Stat es v. P ai nt er , 400 F. 3d 1111, 1111 ( 8th C i r . 2005) ( “[B]e caus e the s ent ence i s m andat ed bys t atut e, i ti s fr ee of err orunderthe Supr eme C our t ’ s r ece nt deci s i on i n B ooker. . . . ” ). A c c o rd in g ly , o u r in d e p e n d e n t re v iew o f th e re c o rd re v e a ls thatM at os has no nonfr i vol ous i s s ue forappea l r egar di ng ei t herthe s ent ence i m pos ed by th e Di s tr i c tCo u r to ra n yo t h e ra s p e c to f th e p r o c e e d i n g s b e l o w. III . A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l aff i r m the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s j udgm entof s ent ence and gr ant c o u n s e l ’ s mo t i o n t o wi t h d r a w. 2