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 4-13-2005 

# U SA v . G arb 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 . 03-4568

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . 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 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 nova 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 a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova 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 l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . G ar b a" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1369. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/1369NOT 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. 03- 4568 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. OS M AN GAR BA , a /k /a A laji, a /k /a I sh m a e l, a/k/ a O us s oum anou G arba, 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 . C . C r i m i nal A ct i on N o. 99- cr - 00704- 3) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e M aryL i t t l e C ooper Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A pr i l 4, 2005 B efor e: B A R R Y , A M B R O and C O W E N , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: A pr i l 13, 2005) OP I NI ON A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udge O sm a n G a rb a a p p e a ls th e D istric t C o u rt’s ( 1 ) d e n ial o f h is m o tio n to w ith d ra w h is2

g u iltyp lea , (2 ) d e n ial o f h is m o tio n to d ism iss h is in d ictm e n t u n d e r th e S p e e d yT ria l A c t, and ( 3) t he s ent ence i ti m pos ed. Fort he r eas ons t hatfol l ow , w e af fi r m t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s deni al s of G arba’ s m ot i ons chal l engi ng hi s convi ct i on. H ow ever , i n l i ghtof U ni t ed St at es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. - - - - , 125 S. C t . 738 ( 2005) , w e vac at e hi s s ent ence and r emand forr es ent enci ng. T he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on under18 U . S. C . § 3231. O urC our thas j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. A s w e w r i t e s ol el yfort he part i es , w e do not re sta te th e f

a c ts u n d e rly in g th e a p p e a l. I. G arba ar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our ts houl d have gr ant ed the mot i on t o w i t hdr aw hi s gui l t ypl ea “ beca us e ( 1) hi s pl ea w as gi ven undert he mi s t aken be l i ef thathe w oul d be a b le to c o n tes t th e a m o u n t o f c o c a in e in v o lv e d a t a h e a rin g b e f o re th e se n ten c in g ; (2 ) h is p lea w a s th e re su lt o f

in e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f

c o u n se l in v io latio n o f

th e S ix th A m end m ent; and (3) t he p l ea hea ri ng con du ct ed b yt he C ou rtviol at ed R ule 11 be cause G a rb a w a s n o t m a d e a w a re th a t at tria l th e g o v e rn m e n t w o u ld h a v e to p ro v e th e q u a n tity of coc ai ne i nvol ved t o t he j ur ybey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . ” U ni t ed St at es v. G arba, 285 F. Supp. 2d 504, 509 ( D . N . J . 2003) . A ft erconduct i ng an evi dent i aryhear i ng, t he D i s t r i ct Co u r tc a r e f

u l l yc o n s i d e r e d e a c h o f t h e s e a r g u me n t s a tl e n g t h , a p p l y i n g t h e f r a me wo r k we des cr i bed i n U ni t ed St at es v. J ones , 336 F. 3d 245 ( 3d C i r . 2003) , and ul t i m at el yr ej ect ed t h e m.3

“[T] her e i s no abs ol ut e r i ghtt o w i t hdr aw a gui l t ypl ea, ” butr ather“ac cept ance of t he mot i on i s w i t hi n t he di s cr et i on of the tr i al cour t . ” G ov' tof V . I . v. B err y , 631 F. 2d 2 1 4 , 2 1 9 (3 d C ir.1 9 8 0 ). W e a re sa tisf ied th a t th e D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rlye x e rc ise d th is d iscreti o n in a m an n er c o n sist en t w ith o u r C ir cu it ’s pre ce d en t. It s d en ial o f G arb a’s m o ti o n to w ith d raw h is plea w as th o rou g h , ca ref u l and w ell -reaso n ed . W e the ref o re acc epti t s concl us i on. II. H a v in g u p h e ld th e D istric t C o u rt’s d e n ial o f G a rb a ’s m o tio n to w ith d ra w h is g u ilty pl ea, w e ca n eas i l ydi s pens e w i t h hi s SpeedyT r i al A ctar gum ent . H i s uncondi t i onal gui l t ypl ea ( w i t houtr es ervat i on of the r i ghtt o chal l enge the deni al of hi s m ot i on under t he A ct ) oper at ed as a w ai verof al l cl ai m s of pr e- exi s t i ng err or( exce ptt hos e goi ng t o t he C our t ’ s j ur i s di ct i on) . A s s uch, G arba has w ai ved the r i ghtt o i nvoke on appe al t he deni al of hi s SpeedyT r i al A ctm ot i on. III . O nl yG arba’ s chal l enge t o hi s s ent ence underB ookerr emai ns . H avi ng det erm i ned t hat the sentenci ng i ssues he rai ses ar e bestdeterm i ned byt he D i stri ctC ou rti n the fi rs t instan ce , w e v ac ate h is sen tenc e a n d rem an d fo r resen tenc ing in ac co rda n ce w ith B o o k er.