2009 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
7-31-2009 

# U SA v . T re nell C ole m an P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-3155

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_2009

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 2009 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 . T r e nell C o le m an" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 873. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/873P 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. 08- 3155

UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. T RE NE L L J
. CO L E M AN, 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

forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D
. C
. N o. 3- 02- cr - 00320- 003) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e A nne E. T hom ps on

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

J ul y10, 2009 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , A M B R O , and J O R D A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: J ul y31, 2009 )

_____ Tr e ne l l J
. Col e man, Pr o Se A l l e nwood USP W hi t e D eer , PA l 7887- 0000 J ohn M
. H ol l i day , E s q. Sui t e 207 2273 St at e H i ghw ay33 T r ent on, N J 08690 A t t orneyforA ppel l ant2 G eor ge S. L eone S am u el A
. S tern O ffi ce of U ni t ed St at es A t t orney 9 7 0 B ro a d S tre e t R oom 700 N ew ark, N J 07102- 0000 A t t orney s forA ppel l ee

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT
SL O V I T E R , C i r cui tJ udge. A ppel l antT r enel l J
. C ol eman w as convi ct ed bya j uryof a H obbs A ctcons pi r acyt o comm i tbank r obber i es i n vi ol at i on of 18 U
. S. C
. § 1951 ( C ount1) , att empt ed bank r obberyi n vi ol at i on o f 1 8 U
. S
. C
. § 2 1 1 3 (C o u n t 3), tw o co u n ts of u se o f a firearm dur i ng the comm i s s i on of a c r i m e of vi ol ence i n vi ol at i on of 18 U
. S. C
. § 924( c) ( C ount s 2 and 4) , and pos s es s i on of a f i r earm by a c o n v ic te d f

e lo n in v io la tio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 (g ) ( C o u n t 6 ). C o lem a n w a s th e n se n ten c e d to 5 7 2 m o n th s im p riso n m e n t. O n ap p ea l t o this co u rt , w e a ff irm ed C o lem an ’s convi ct i on butvaca t ed hi s s ent ence and r emanded for r es ent enci ng i n l i ghtof the Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n U ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 543 U
. S. 220 ( 2005)
. N otw i ths t andi ng our r emand, w e al s o hel d t hatthe D i s tr i ctC ourtpr oper l yi m pos ed b o th a se v e n -y e a r m a n d a to ry -c o n se c u tiv e se n ten c e o n C o u n t 2 and a tw enty - fi ve y earm andat ory - cons ecut i ve s ent ence on C ount 4 beca us e thos e s ent ence s w er e r equi r ed bythe t erm s of § 9 2 4 (c ). See U

ni t ed Stat es v. G oggans , F. A pp’ x 515, 518 ( 3d C i r . 2007)
. O n r emand, the D i s tr i ctC our ti m pos ed a s ent ence of 4 4 4 m o n th s im p riso n m e n t. C o lem a n ’s c o u n se l, w h o f iled a tim e lyn o tice o f

a p p e a l, h as f il ed a m o ti o n to w ith d raw as c o u n sel an d a b ri ef in su p p o rt of thatm ot i on pur s uantt o A n d e rs v . C a lif o rn ia , 386 U
. S. 738,3 7 4 4 (1 9 6 7 ). C o lem a n h a s f iled a p ro se b rie f

in o p p o sitio n to h is cou nsel ’s A nd ers m ot i on. T he governm enthas al s o fi l ed a br i ef supp ort i ng cou nsel ’s A nd ers m ot i on. I. C o lem a n a n d c o -d e f

e n d a n ts L a c yG o g g a n s, R o n a ld B lac k w e ll, a n d R y a n W a sh in g to n c o n sp ire d to ro b n in e b a n k s in N ew J er s eybetw een 2000 a nd 2002. C ol eman w as arm ed w i th, an d b ran d ishe d , a f

ir ea rm d u ri n g the ro b b eries. T h e c o n sp ir ators a lso a ttem p ted to ro b th e R o m a F e d e ra l S a v in g s B a n k in T re n to n , N e w J e rs e y , o n A p ri l 1 6 , 2 0 0 2 , w h ic h th e ya b o rt e d
. D ur i ng thei rfl i ght , C ol eman w as arr es t ed w hi l e i n pos s es s i on of a f i r e a r m. A s not ed above , C ol eman w as convi ct ed bya j uryof c o n sp ira c yto c o m m it b a n k ro b b e ryu n d e r th e H o b b s A c t, att empt ed bank r obbery , tw o count s of us e of a fi r earm dur i ng a c ri m e o f v io le n c e , a n d p o s s e s s io n o f a f ir e a rm b ya f

e lo n . W e p re v io u s ly af

f ir m e d th a t c o n v ic tio n . G oggans , 257 F. A pp’ x at 5 1 7
. T h u s, the o n lyissue b ef o re u s is w h ethe r th e D istri ct C o u rt p ro p e rlyre se n ten c e d C o lem a n a f ter w e re m a n d e d th e c a se in l i ghtof B ooker
. O n r emand, the D i s tr i ctC our tdet erm i ned, as i thad dur i ng C ol eman’ s i ni t i al s ent enci ng and as w e appr oved i n our opi ni on on hi s fi r s tappea l , thati tw as r equi r ed t o i m pos e a s even- y earcons ecut i ve s ent ence on C ount2, w hi ch i nvol ved a vi ol at i on of 18 U
. S. C
. § 924( c) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i ) forbr andi s hi ng a w eapon dur i ng the bank r obber i es under l y i ng the H obbs A ct cons pi r acy , and a tw enty - fi ve- y earcons ecut i ve s ent ence on C o u n t 4 , w h ic h in v o lv e d a v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 924( c) ( 1) ( C ) ( i ) forus e of a fi r earm dur i ng the att empt ed bank ro b b e ry . T h e C o u rt a lso c o n c lu d e d th a t itw a s re q u ire d to i m pos e a t en- y earcons ecut i ve s ent ence on C ount6 for pos s es s i on of a f

i r earm bya fe l on. O n t he H obbs A ctcons pi r acy( C ount1) and the att empt ed bank r obbery( C ount3) , the D i s tr i ctC our tw ei ghed the se rio u sn e ss o f

th e o f f e n se s, C o lem a n ’s c rim in a l h isto ry , h is ro le4 in th e o f f e n se s, h is re lativ e y o u th a t th e tim e o f th e o f f e n se s, h is pos i t i ve pos t - convi ct i on conduct , and the l ength of the m andat orys ent ence s on the w eapons offe ns es , and det erm i ned thatconcurr ents ent ence s of s i xtym onths i m pr i s onm enton eac h countw er e appr opr i at e. T hus , the C our ti m pos ed a t ot al s ent ence of 444 m onths i m pr i s onm ent
. C ouns el forC ol eman f iled a tim e lya p p e a l. II. U n d er A nd ers , ap p ell an t’ s co u n sel m u st “sati sfythe c o u rt thathe ors he has thor oughl ys cour ed the r ecor d i n s ear ch of ap p ea lable issu es” an d then “e x p lai n w h ythe issu es a re 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 (3d C ir
. 2000) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed. )
. “The C our t ’ s i nqui ryw hen couns el s ubm i t s an A nd ers br i ef i s thus tw ofol d: ( 1) w hethercouns el adeq uatel yfulfi l l ed [T hir d C i rcui tL ocal A pp el l at e R ule 109.2’ s] r equi r ement s ; and ( 2) w hetheran i ndepende ntr evi ew of the r ecor d pr es ent s anynonfr 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 ). C ol eman’ s couns el cont ends thatther e ar e no nonf riv o lo u s is su e s f

o r re v iew o n a p p e a l. H o w e v e r, co u n se l li m its hi s di s cus s i on t o t he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s compl i ance w i th Feder al R ul e of Cri m i nal Pr ocedur e 32, w hi ch governs the pr ocedur al r equi r ement s fors ent enci ng. W e ar e tr oubl ed bycouns el ’ s fai l ur e t o addr es s anyi s s ue o th e r th a n th e D istric t C o u rt’s c o m p lian c e w ith R u le 3 2 . F irst, C ol eman’ s couns el does notm ent i on the ar gum entr ai s ed by C o lem a n in h is p ro se b rie f to a ss u re u s th a t h e h a s f o u n d it t o la c k m e ri t. See Ma rv in , 211 F. 3d at781 ( r ej ect i ng A nd ers m ot i on beca us e, i nt eral i a, couns el fai l ed t o addr es s i s s ues r ai s ed in client’s pro se b ri ef

). F u rth er, de sp it e the fa ct th at th is co u rt pr evi ous l yr emanded C ol eman’ s cas e forr es ent enci ng, C ol eman’ s couns el does noteven a l l ude t o the ques t i on w hether C o lem an ’s ne w sen tenc e is reas o n ab le un d er B ookera n d its p r o g e n y. C e r t a i n l y n o te v e ry A nd ers br i ef ne ed i ncl ude a chal l enge t o t he r eas onabl enes s of the s ent ence , es peci al l yw hen the pr o s e appe l l antdoes notr ai s e the i s s ue, buther e i tw as the5 courtthatr ai s ed the i s s ue. W e emphas i ze thatcouns el need notpr es s fr i vol ous ar gum ent s on appea l , butthe fa i l ur e t o addr es s l egal chal l enges r ai s ed byC ol eman and the fa i l ur e t o ful l yaddr es s the veryi s s ue forw hi ch w e r emanded thi s m att ercaus e us t o ques t i on w hether C ol eman’ s couns el conduct ed the r equi r ed “c ons ci ent i ous e x a m in a tio n ” o f

th e re c o rd
. A nd ers , 3 8 6 U. S
. a t7 4 4
. T h u s , we m us tdeci de w hetherw e s houl d appoi ntnew couns el ort ake so m e o th e r ste p to e n su re th a t C o lem a n re c e iv e s a d e q u a te r epr es ent at i on. W e bel i eve thatourr es ol ut i on of thi s m att eri s gui ded by the Supr eme C our t ’ s r ece nti ns truct i ons t o thi s courtr egar di ng an A nd ers m ot i on i n B ennet tv. U ni t ed Stat es , 128 S. C t
. 2423 ( 2008)
. A ft erB ennettw as convi ct ed of pos s es s i on of cr ack a nd p o w d e r c o c a in e a n d se n ten c e d to 2 4 0 m o n th s im p riso n m e n t, his couns el fi l ed a not i ce of appea l and s oughtt o w i thdr aw fr om the cas e pur s uantt o A nd ers . U n itedS ta tes v . B e n n e tt , 2 1 9 F
. A p p ’x 265, 266 ( 3d C i r . 2007)
. B ennettfi l ed a pr o s e br i ef i n w hi ch he no t ed thatthe d i stri ctcou rterr ed b yi m po si ng a reci divi st enhanc ementt o hi s s ent ence bas ed on a pr i orconvi ct i on that re m a in e d su b

jec t to d ire c t re v iew ; B e n n e tt’s c o u n se l f a iled to p re s e n t th is a rg u m e n t o r e x p la in w h yit w a s f ri v o lo u s . I

d. at 266- 67. H ow ever , even the governm entconce ded thatthe d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s im p o s itio n o f th e e n h a n c e m e n t w a s p la in e rr o r. I d. Ra th e rth a n o r d e rth e a p p o i n t me n to f n e w c o u n s e l , we g ran ted c o u n sel’s m o ti o n to w ith d raw an d af firm ed B en n ett ’s convi ct i on, vaca t ed hi s s ent ence , and r emanded the ca s e t o the d is tr ic t c o u rt
. Id

. at267. B e n n e tt p e tit io n e d f

o r c e rtio ra ri to th e S u p re m e C o u rt, a lle g in g th a t o u r d e c is io n in f ri n g e d h is ri g h t to a p p e lla te c o u n s e l. T he C our tgr ant ed a w r i tof ce r t i or ar i , vaca t ed the j udgm ent , and r emanded t he ca s e t o t hi s court“forfur thercons i der at i on i n l i ght of the pos i t i on as s ert ed bythe Sol i ci t orG ener al i n hi s br i ef f or the U ni t ed St at es . ” B e n n e tt , 128 S. C t
. at2423. I n thatbr i ef, the g o v e rn m e n t co n ten d e d th a t o u r d e c isio n w a s in c o n sis ten t w ithW e n o t e th a tth e g o v e rn me n th a d n o tc i t e d P en s on in its 1 b rie f to th is c o u rt. 6 P e n so n v . O h io , 488 U
. S. 75 ( 1988)
. B r i ef f orthe U ni t ed St at es 1 a t 9 -1 0 , B e n n e tt v . U

n ite d S ta te s , 128 S. C t
. 2423 ( 2008) ( N o. 0 7 -81 7 8 ). I n P ens on , af

ter P en so n an d tw o co d ef en d an ts w ere convi ct ed of s ever al cr i m es i n O hi o s t at e court , hi s couns el fi l ed a n o tic e o f

a p p e a l. P ens on , 488 U
. S. at77. C ouns el al s o fi l ed a br i ef doc um entw i th t he M ont gom eryC ounty , O hi o, C our tof A p p e a ls (th e in ter m e d iate sta te a p p e llate c o u rt) th a t sta ted o n ly th a t “h e h a [ d ] c a re f

u llyre v iew e d th e w ith in re c o rd o n a p p e a l, [ a n d ] th a t h e h a [ d ] f

o u n d n o e rro rs r e q u irin g re v e rsa l, m odi fi cat i on and/ orvaca t i on of appe l l ant ’ s j urytr i al convi ct i ons and/ orthe tr i al court ’ s s ent ence . ” Id

. at78. T hus , couns el m oved t o w i thdr aw . T he C our tof A ppeal s then i s s ued an or der thatgr ant ed couns el ’ s m ot i on t o w i thdr aw and thatal s o s t at ed that the c o u rtw o u ld “in d ep en d en tl yrev iew the re co rd thor oughl yt o det erm i ne w hetheranyerr orexi s t s r equi r i ng r ever s al orm odi fi cat i on of the s ent ence . ” I d. H o w e v e r, it d e n ie d P e n s o n ’s re q u e s ts f o r n e w c o u n s e l. I

d. T h e c o u rt eventual l yfound “s ever al ar guabl e cl ai m s ” and “ concl uded that pl ai n err orhad bee n comm i t t ed i n the j uryi ns truct i ons conce r ni ng one count
. ” Id

. at 79
. T h u s, itrev erse d P en so n ’s s ent ence on thatcountbutaff i r m ed hi s convi ct i on and s ent ence o n th e re m a in in g c ri m e s . Id

. A f ter P e n so n ’s a p p e a l w a s d ism iss e d b yth e O h io S u p r e me Co u r t , h e p e t i t i o n e d t o th e Un i t e d S t a t e s S u p r e me C our t , w hi ch r ever s ed. T he C our tconcl uded: I ti s appar entthatthe O hi o C our tof A ppeal s di d not fol l ow the A nd ers p ro c e d u re s w h e n it g ra n ted a p p e llate couns el ’ s m ot i on t o w i thdr aw , and thati tcomm i t t ed an even mor e s er i ous err orw hen i tfai l ed t o appoi ntnew couns el aft erfi ndi ng thatthe r ecor d s uppor t ed s ever al arg u ab lym erit o ri o u s g rou n d s fo r rev ersa l of p eti ti o n er’s c o n v ictio n a n d m o d if

ica tio n o f

h is s e n ten c e . A s a re su lt,7 p e tit io n e r w a s le f

t w ith o u t co n stitu tio n a llya d e q u a te re p re se n tatio n o n a p p e a l. 488 U
. S. at81. T hus , the Supr eme C our tfound tw o err or s that c o m b in e d to u n d e rm in e P e n s o n ’s ri g h t to a p p e lla te c o u n s e l. Fi r s t , hi s couns el fai l ed t o fi l e an appr opr i at e A nd ers br i ef, w h ich th e re f

o re “ lef t th e O h io c o u rt w ith o u t an a d e q u a te b a sis f o r d e ter m in in g th a t h e h a d p e rf o rm e d h is d u tyc a re f

u llyto s ear ch the ca s e forar guabl e err orand al s o depr i ved the courtof the a ssist an ce o f a n ad v o ca te i n it s o w n rev iew o f th e c o ld rec o rd on appea l
. ” I

d. at82. Fur ther , “the O hi o courterr ed byfai l i ng t o appoi ntnew couns el t o r epr es entpet i t i oneraft eri thad det erm i ned thatthe r ecor d s uppor t ed ‘ s ever al ar guabl e cl ai m s . ’ ” I d. at83
. T hat i s, “ o n c e a c o u rt d e ter m in e s th a t th e trial re c o rd su p p o rts a rg u a b le c la im s , . . . th e c ri m in a l a p p e lla n t is e n title d to re p re s e n ta tio n .” I d. at84. A ccor di ng t o t he Sol i ci t orG ener al ’ s br i ef i n B e n n e tt , P ens on stan d s fo r th e p rop o sit ion that, w h ere an ap p ell ate c o u rt det erm i nes “both t hatpet i t i oner ’ s appoi nt ed couns el had fa i l ed t o compl yw i th t he A nd ers pr ocedur e and that co u n sel’s s ubs t ant i ve r epr es ent at i on ( thatther e w er e no nonfr i vol ous i s s ues i n t he r ecor d .
. . ) w as i ncorr ect , ” then “the corr ect di s pos i t i on [i s ] t o appoi ntnew couns el t o r evi ew the r ecor d and fi l e ei thera mer i t s br i ef oran A nd ers - compl i antbr i ef. ” B r i ef f or th e U n ite d S ta te s a t 1 2 , B ennet tv. U ni t ed Stat es , 128 S. C t
. 2423 (20 0 8 ) (N o . 0 7 -81 7 8 ). T hi s concl us i on i s cons i s t entw i th ourdeci s i ons and Local R ul es i m pl ement i ng A nd ers . U nderourR ul es , i f a pa nel “fi nds ar guabl e mer i tt o t he appe al , orthatthe A nd ers b rie f is i nadequa t e t o as s i s tthe courti n i t s r evi ew , i tw i l l appoi nt s ubs t i tut e couns el , or ders uppl ement al br i efi ng and r es t or e the c a s e t o th e c a l e n d a r . ” 3 d Ci r . L
. A. R. 1 0 9
. 2 ( 2 0 0 8 )
. I tf o l l o ws th a t if a p a n e l c o n c lu d e s th a t a n a p p e a l la c k s a rg u a b le m e ri t ( i.e ., i s fr i vol ous ) , then ourR ul es do notr equi r e appoi nt m entof new c o u n se l. In d e e d , “in th o se c a se s in w h ich f riv o lo u sn e ss is pat ent , ” w e w i l l notappoi ntnew couns el even i f an A nd ers br i ef8 i s i ns uffi ci entt o di s char ge curr entcouns el ’ s obl i gat i ons t o hi s or h e r c lie n t a n d th is c o u rt
. M a rv in , 2 1 1 F .3 d a t 7 8 1 ; see al so P ens on , 488 U
. S. at89 ( O ’ C onnor , J
. , concurr i ng) ( not i ng that
“ n o th in g in th e C o u rt’s o p in io n f o re c lo se s th e p o ss ib ili tyth a t a m er e t echni cal vi ol at i on of [A nd ers ] m i ghtbe exc us abl e” a nd concl udi ng thatthe vi ol at i on i n P ens on “w as n o t a m ere tech n ical violati o n ”). A p p ly in g th e se p rin c ip les h e re , w e c o n c lu d e th a t, al though t he A nd ers br i ef f i l ed byC ol eman’ s couns el w as defici ent, the ap peal i s pat entl yfri vo l ou s. A ccordi ng l y , this case i s d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f

r o m P ens on and B e n n e tt . C ol eman, i n hi s pr o s e fi l i ngs w i th thi s court , cont ends that “the ‘an ycrim e o f v iolen ce ’ l an g u ag e in [ 1 8 U
. S
. C
. ] § 924( c) i s ambi guous as t o the al l ow abl e uni tof pr os ecut i on, and the i m pos i t i on of a s econd mandat ory - cons ecut i ve 25- y ear se n ten c e v io late s d o u b le je o p a rd y .” C o lem a n ’s R e p lyto A pp el l ee’s R espon se t o C ou nsel ’s A nd ers B ri ef an d A p p ell an t’ s P r o S e Op p o s i t i o n a t4
. Ho we v e r , Co l e ma n r a i s e d a n d we re je c te d th a t s a m e a rg u m e n t in C o le m a n ’s f ir s t a p p e a l, G oggans , 2 5 7 F . A p p ’x a t 5 1 7 , a n d th a t r e je c tio n b in d s u s h e re . See In re C i t y of P hi ladel phi a Li t igat i on , 1 5 8 F
. 3 d 7 1 1 , 7 1 7 -18 (3d C ir
. 1 9 9 8 ). In d e e d , as n o ted p re v io u sly , the o n lyiss u e p ro p e rly befor e us on thi s appea l i s C ol eman’ s s ent ence fol l ow i ng our r emand i n hi s fi r s tappea l forr e- s ent enci ng i n l i ghtof B ooker
. W e s ee no non- fr i vol ous i s s ues w i th r egar d t o C ol eman’ s new sen tenc e. W e a g ree w ith h is co u n sel th at th e D istri ct C o u rt pr oper l ycompl i ed w i th the r equi r ement s of Feder al R ul e of C r i m i nal Pr ocedur e 32. T he D i s tr i ctC our tal s o fol l ow ed the di ct at es of B ookerand i t s pr ogeny . I tw oul d have be en hel pful fo r co u n sel t o n o te th at th e C o u rtco rrectl yca lculated C o lem an ’s re c o m m e n d e d se n ten c in g ra n g e u n d e r th e G u id e lin e s, p ro p e rly d eterm ined that C o lem an w as su b ject t o sev era l st atuto ry m a n d a to rym in im u m se n ten c e s, h e a rd a rg u m e n ts f ro m b o th part i es r egar di ng an appr opr i at e s ent ence on the r emai ni ng c o u n ts, a n d e x ten siv e lyd isc u ss e d th e f a c to rs u n d e rly in g its s ent ence on the r ecor d. M or eover , the D i s tr i ctC our texer ci s ed9 i t s di s cr et i on and gr ant ed a s ubs t ant i al dow nw ar d departur e fr om C o lem an ’s i n it ial sen tenc e. T h u s, w e se e n o b asis in the rec o rd to c o n c lu d e th a t th e D is tr ic t C o u rt a b u s e d its d is c re tio n . See G al lv. U ni t ed Stat es , 552 U
. S. 38, 128 S. C t
. 586, 594- 97 (20 0 7 ). Fi nal l y , and notw i ths t andi ng ourul t i m at e di s pos i t i on of thi s cas e, w e r emi nd appel l at e couns el w ho s eek t o w i thdr aw fr om r epr es ent at i on t o heed c ar eful l ythe r equi r ement s of A nd ers and ou r Lo cal R ules i m plem enti ng that deci si on . A s P ens on r ecogni zed, “i ti s thr ough couns el thatal l otherr i ght s of the acc us ed ar e pr ot ect ed. ” 488 U
. S. at84. I ndeed, “[t ] he nee d for for cef ul advoca cydoes notcome t o an abrupthal tas the l egal pr ocee di ng m oves fr om the tr i al t o appel l at e s t age. ” I d. at85. III . F o r th e a b o v e-stated rea so n s, w e w il l gran t cou n sel’s m ot i on t o w i thdr aw and af fi r m the s ent ence .