2010 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 7-6-2010 

# U SA v . L amont R id ley 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 . 09-2729

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_2010

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 2010 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 . L amont R

idley " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1019. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1019NOT 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. 09- 2729 UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA

v. LAM ON T RI DLEY al s o know n as M ON TY al s o know n as M ONT al s o know n as M ACK L a m o n tR i d l e y, A ppel l ant APP EAL F ROM THE UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT C OURT

FOR TH E DI STRI CT O F NEW J ERSEY ( D . C . C r i m . N o. 08- cr - 00190- 001) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e R ober tB . K ugl er Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J ul y2, 2010 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , B A R R Y and H A R D I M A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: J ul y6, 2010)

OP I NI ONA gr and j ur yhad pr evi ous l yr eturned an i ndi ctm entchar gi ng R i dl eyw i t h cons pi r acy 1 t o di s t r i but e and pos s es s w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e fi ve ki l ogr ams orm or e of c ocai ne, and a s uper s edi ng i ndi ctm entchar gi ng hi m w i t h cons pi r acyas w el l as s even c ount s of di s t r i but i on of coc ai ne, one countof pos s es s i on w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e coc ai ne, one countof m ai nt ai ni ng a pl ace fort he purpos e of manufac tur i ng a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance , and t h i r t e e n c o u n t s o f

u s i n g a c o m m u n i c a t i o n f a c i l i t y ( t e l e p h o n e ) t o f

u r t h e ra d ru g c o n s p i r a c y. R i dl eyqual i fi ed as a ca r eeroffe nder , U . S. S. G . § 4B 1. 1, beca us e of thr ee pr evi ous 2 s t at e courtconvi ct i ons fordrug offe ns es . T he bas e off ens e l evel forthi s quant i t yof coca i ne i s 26, U . S. S. G . § 2D 1. 1( c) ( 7) , w hi ch w as i ncr eas ed t o 34 byvi r tue of the ca r eer offe nderpr ovi s i on. R i dl eyr ece i ved a thr ee- l evel dow nw ar d adj us t m entforacc ept ance of re s p o n s ib ility a n d tim e ly p le a d in g g u ilty, § 3 E 1 .1 (a ), ( b ), f o r a to ta l o f

f e n s e le v e l o f

3 1 . -2- B A R R Y , C i r cui tJ udge. L a m o n t R id ley ap p e a ls f ro m th e D istric t C o u rt’s ju d g m e n t o f se n ten c e , an d h is couns el has fi l ed a mot i on t o w i t hdr aw pur s uantt o A n d e rs v . C a lif o rn ia , 386 U . S. 738 ( 1967) . R i dl eyhas fi l ed a pro se i n f o r ma l b r i e f. W e wi l l a f f i r m. I. B ecause the part i es ar e fam i l i ar w i t h the fact s, w e w i l l setforth o nlytho se n e c e s s a r y t o o u ra n a l ys i s . R i d l e y w a s a l a r g e - s c a l e c o c a i n e d i s t r i b u t o ri n A t l a n t i c C i t y, N ew J er s ey . O n D ece m ber19, 2008, he pl ed gui l t yt o a s uper s edi ng i nform at i on c h a r g i n g h i m wi t h c o n s p i r a c yt o d i s t r i b u t e a n d p o s s e s s wi t h i n t e n tt o d i s t r i b u t e 5 0 0 g r a ms orm or e of c ocai ne, contr aryt o 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) , ( b) ( 1) ( B ) and i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 846. T he part i es had ent er ed i nt o a pl ea a gr eementand s t i pul at ed that , betw een 1 Ju ly2 0 0 6 a n d M a rc h 2 0 0 7 , R id ley ob tain e d a n d so ld , o r p o ss e ss e d w ith th e in ten t to se ll, atl eas t500 gr ams of coc ai ne. B eca us e of Ri dl ey ’ s cl as s i fi cat i on as a ca r eeroffe nder , t he appl i cabl e G ui del i nes r ange w as 188 t o 235 m ont hs i m pr i s onm ent . A ts ent enci ng on 2A s a c a re e r o f f e n d e r, h is c ri m in a l h is to ry c a te g o ry in c re a s e d f ro m V to V I. T he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3231, and w e have 3 ju ri s d ic tio n p u rs u a n t to 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 4 2 (a ) a n d 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . -3- J une 3, 2009, R i dl eyr eques t ed a dow nw ar d departur e pur s uantt o U . S. S. G . § 4A 1. 3( b) for over - r epr es ent at i on of cr i m i nal hi s t or y , w hi ch the D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed. H e al s o ar gued fora dow nw ar d var i ance bas ed on hi s pos i t i ve contr i but i ons t o t he comm uni t y . T he C o u rt u lti m a telyim p o se d a se n ten c e o f 1 8 0 m o n th s im p riso n m e n t, an e ig h t-m o n th dow nw ar d var i ance fr om t he bot t om of the G ui del i nes r ange, as w el l as fi ve y ear s of s upervi s ed r el eas e and a $100 s peci al as s es s m ent . R i dl eyappea l ed, and couns el now s eeks t o w i t hdr aw , s t at i ng t hatt her e ar e no non- fr i vol ous i s s ues forus t o r evi ew on a p p e a l. II. 3 “U n d er A nd ers , appel l ant ’ s couns el m us ts at i s fythe courtthathe ors he has t hor oughl ys cour ed the r ecor d i n s ear ch of a ppeal abl e i s s ues and then expl ai n w hythe i s s ues ar e fr i vol ous . T he C our t ’ s i nqui r yw hen couns el s ubm i t s an A nd ers br i ef i s thus tw o f o ld : (1 ) w h e th e r c o u n se l ad e q u a telyf u lf ill e d T h ird C irc u it L o c a l A p p e llate R u le 109. 2’ s r equi r ement s [thatcouns el fi l e a mot i on t o w i t hdr aw and s uppor t i ng A nd ers br i ef] ; 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

ni t ed Stat es v. C ol em an , 575 F. 3d 316, 319 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m a rk s, c itatio n s, a n d a ltera tio n s o m itt e d ); see al so U n itedS ta tes v . Y

o u la , 241 F. 3d 296, 299- 300 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . H er e, couns el has fi l ed a thor ough br i ef thats at i s fi es theA l t hough t he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notexpl i ci t l yadvi s e R i dl eyof the r i ghtt o pl ead not 4 g u il ty , F ed . R . C ri m . P . 1 1 (b)(1 )(B ), o r th e righ t t o b e re p rese n ted b yco u n sel at ev ery s ta g e o f th e p ro c e e d in g , F e d . R . C ri m . P . 1 1 (b )( 1 )( D ), t h o s e e rr o rs w e re n o t p la in . See U ni t ed Stat es v. D om i nguezB eni t ez , 542 U . S. 74, 76 ( 2004) ( not i ng thatpl ai n err or r evi ew appl i es t o an al l egat i on of R ul e 11 err ornotpr es erved byobj ect i on atthe pl ea h e a rin g ). T o e sta b lish p lain e rro r in th is c o n tex t, R id ley “m u st s h o w a re a so n a b le pr obabi l i t yt hat , butfort he err or , he w oul d nothave e nt er ed the pl ea. ” Id . at 83 . W e a re confi dentt hathe w oul d be unabl e t o m eetthi s bur den, as ther e i s no i ndi cat i on thatany m is a p p re h e n s io n re g a rd in g th e s e ri g h ts in f lu e n c e d R id le y ’s d e c is io n to p le a d g u ilty. -4- r equi r ement s of A nd ers . A n d , af ter ou r ow n rev iew o f th e re co rd, w e a g ree that there are n o n o n -f ri v o lo u s is s u e s o n a p p e a l. F irst, th e D istric t C o u rt w a s s a tisf ied th a t R id ley en ter e d h is g u iltyp lea k n o w in g ly and vol unt ar i l y , and R i dl eydoes notcont end otherw i s e. D ur i ng the pl ea c ol l oquy , the pr os ecut orr eci t ed the pert i nentt erm s of the pl ea a gr eement , i ncl udi ng the fa ctual s t i pul at i ons betw een the part i es , and R i dl eyw as advi s ed of the appl i cabl e pena l t i es . T he C our tens ur ed thatR i dl eyunder s t ood t he pr ocee di ngs , confi r m ed thathe w i s hed t o w ai ve in d ictm e n t b yth e g ra n d ju ry , d e sc rib e d f e d e ra l se n ten c in g p ro c e d u re , n o ted th e e lem e n ts of the off

ens e, es t abl i s hed the fa ctual bas i s forthe pl ea, and des cr i bed the r i ght s thathe w a s g iv in g u p b yp lea d in g g u ilty . In su m , the D istric t C o u rt’s c o llo q u ya d e q u a tely es t abl i s hed thatR i dl ey ’ s gui l t ypl ea w as val i dl yent er ed. 4 Second, w e conc urw i t h couns el thatthe D i s t r i ctC our tdi d noterri n conduct i ng t he s ent enci ng hear i ng and i m pos i ng s ent ence . W e r evi ew s ent ence s forabus e of d is c re tio n . U

ni t ed Stat es v. Tom ko , 5 6 2 F .3 d 5 5 8 , 5 6 7 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 9 ) (e n b a n c ). W ith r es pectt o pr ocedur al r eas onabl enes s , w e ens ur e “thatthe di s t r i ctcour tcomm i t t ed no-5-

s i gni fi cant pr ocedur al err or , s uch as fai l i ng t o cal cul at e ( ori m pr oper l ycal cul at i ng) the G ui del i nes r ange, t r eat i ng t he G ui del i nes as m andat ory , fai l i ng t o cons i derthe § 3553( a) f a c to rs, s e lec tin g a se n ten c e b a se d o n c lea rlye rro n e o u s f a c ts, o r f a ili n g to a d e q u a tely expl ai n t he chos en s ent ence –i ncl udi ng an expl anat i on foranydevi at i on fr om the G ui del i nes r ange. ” I

d. ( quot i ng G al lv. U

ni t ed Stat es , 5 5 2 U .S . 3 8 , 5 1 (2 0 0 7 )). W ith r es pectt o s ubs t ant i ve r eas onabl enes s , w e w i l l aff i r m “unl es s no r eas onabl e s ent enci ng cour tw oul d have i m pos ed the s ame se nt ence on t hatpart i cul ardefe ndantforthe r eas ons t he di s t r i ctcour tpr ovi ded. ” I d. at568. T h e s e n te n c in g p ro c e e d in g m e t th e re q u ir e m e n ts w e h a v e o u tlin e d . See U ni t ed Stat es v. G unt er , 4 6 2 F .3 d 2 3 7 , 2 4 7 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ); s ee al s o Fed. R . C r i m . P. 32. T he G ui del i nes cal cul at i on as s etfor t h i n t he pr e- s ent ence i nves t i gat i on r epor tw as undi s put ed, and the D i s t r i ctC our toffe r ed an opportuni t yt o obj ectt o t he r epor tat s ent enci ng. T he C our tdeni ed R i dl ey ’ s m ot i on fora dow nw ar d departur e pur s uantt o § 4 A 1 .3 (b ), a d is c re tio n a ry d e c is io n th a t w e d o n o t h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w . U ni t ed Stat es v. Jones , 566 F. 3d 353, 366 ( 3d C i r . 2009) . I tthen perm i t t ed couns el , R i dl ey , and h is fri en d s an d fa m il yto ad d ress itb ef o re im p o sing sen tenc e. F inally , the C o u rt c o n sid e re d th e se n ten c in g f a c to rs s e t f

o rth a t 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ). It ad e q u a tely expl ai ned i t s chos en s ent ence , not i ng the s er i ous nes s of the off ens e and Ri dl ey ’ s cr i m i nal hi s t or y , butal s o acknow l edged hi s favor abl e per s onal char act er i s t i cs and the s uppor the re c e iv e d f

ro m h is f a m ilya n d f

rie n d s. W ith re sp e c t to su b sta n tiv e re a so n a b len e ss , itis-6-

c lea r th a t th e b e lo w -G u id e lin e s s e n ten c e im p o se d is “ w ith in th e b ro a d ra n g e o f p o ss ib le s ent ence s t hatcan be cons i der ed r eas onabl e i n l i ghtof the § 3553( a) fac t or s . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. W

ise , 5 1 5 F .3 d 2 0 7 , 2 1 8 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 8 ); see al so A p p . at 15 6 (D istri ct C o u rt not i ng t he “tr emendous br eak” R i dl eyr ece i ved fr om the oppor tuni t yt o pl ead gui l t yt o t he su p erse d ing inf

o rm ati o n an d the d ism issal of the s u p erse d ing ind ict m en t) . Fi nal l y , R i dl eyhas fi l ed a pro se i n f o r ma l b r i e f

r a i s i n g o n e a d d i t i o n a l i s s u e . He c o n ten d s th a t h is c o u n se l als o re p re se n ted R a lp h D a v is, w h o w a s s e p a ra telyc h a rg e d w ith drug cons pi r acy , and thatt hi s pr es ent s a conf l i ctof i nt er es tbeca us e D avi s “made a st at em ent agai nst[him ]. ” W e hav e held, ho w ever, that “an actual confli ctof int eres t cl ai m , l i ke othert ypes of i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el cl ai m s , i s gener al l ynot cogni zabl e i n t he fi r s ti ns t ance on di r ectappea l . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Mor ena , 547 F. 3d 191, 1 9 8 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) ( n o tin g a ls o th a t “ [ s ]u c h c la im s a re b e tte r r e s e rv e d f o r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 a c t i o n s ” wh i c h a l l o w f o rf a c tu a l d e v e l o p me n to f

th e c l a i m) . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we d e c lin e to c o n s id e r t h is c la im in th e f ir s t in s ta n c e . III . Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the j udgm entof s ent ence and gr ant couns el ’ s m ot i on t o w i t hdr aw . W e not e thatthe i s s ues pr es ent ed i n t hi s appea l l ack l egal m er i tand do notr equi r e the fi l i ng of a pe t i t i on forcert i or ar i w i t h t he U ni t ed St at es S u p re m e C o u rt . 3 d C ir . L .A .R . 1 0 9 .2 (b ).