2008 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 6-20-2008 

# U SA v . S k effe ry 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 . 06-5024

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_2008

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 2008 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 . S keffe ry " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 999. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/999NOT 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- 5024 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. RO BE RT F . S KE F F E RY ,

A ppel l ant

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 W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia (D . C . C ri m i nal A ct i on N o. 05 -cr -0000 2-I J) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e K i m R . G i bs on Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 5, 2008 B efor e: A M B R O , C H A G A R E S and C O W E N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed J une 20, 2008 )

OP I NI ON A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udge R o b e rt S k e f

f e rya p p e a ls f

ro m h is c o n v ictio n f

o r p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to d istrib u te f e w e r t h a n f

if ty k ilo g ra m s o f

m a ri ju a n a . W e a f

f ir m .2

In A p ri l 20 0 4 , P en n sy lvan ia S tat e T roo p er W estl eyB erk eb il e sto p p ed S k ef fe ry ’s
c a r o n th e P e n n s y lv a n ia T u rn p ik e f o r w h a t B e rk e b ile c o n s id e re d to b e d a n g e ro u s d ri v in g . B erkebi l e as ked Skeff

eryforhi s dr i ver ’ s l i cens e, hi s r egi s t r at i on, and the vehi cl e’ s r ent al agr eement . I n addi t i on t o hi s r egi s t r at i on, Skeffe r ypr oduced a fake dr i ver ’ s l i cens e i n t he name of “C l y de Ferr on” and a n out - of- dat e r ent al agr eement . B erkebi l e t ol d Skeffe r yt hat the re n tal ag ree m en t w as o v erd u e a n d , w h il e d o ing so , d etec ted a n “o v erw h elm ing o d o r”
o f m arij u an a e m an ati n g fro m the c ar. B erkebi l e then r etur ned t o hi s patr ol carand r an “Cl y de Ferr on” thr ough a
cr i m i nal
- hi s t or ydat abas e, w hi ch r evea l ed thatthe name w as as s oci at ed w i t h num er ous pr i ordrug vi ol at i ons , s ever al al i as es , and a s us pended dr i ver ’ s l i cens e. A s a pr eca ut i on, B erkebi l e ca l l ed Ser geantA nt honyD eLuca t o t he s cene and br i efe d hi m on t he s i tuat i on. B erkebi l e then as ked Skeff eryt o s t ep outof the ca rand pr es ent ed hi m w i t h a
w arni ng not i ce f

ors peedi ng. H e r eturned Skeff ery ’ s document s , t ol d Skeffe r yhe w as “f ree to leav e,” an d b eg an to w alk b ac k to h is pa tr o l car. Skeffe r y ’ s t es t i m onydi ffe r s m arkedl yfr om B erkebi l e’ s and D eLuca’ s as t o w hat h ap p en ed n ex t. A t th e su p p ression h ea ri n g , B erk eb il e a n d D eL u ca test ifi ed that S k ef fe ry r eappr oache d B erkebi l e and s oughtt o expl ai n t he pr obl ems w i th t he r ent al agr eementhe had s how n B erkebi l e pr evi ous l y . B erkebi l e furt hert es t i fi ed: A t th a t p o in t I to ld h im th a t w o u ld n ’t b e n e c e ss a ry . I as k e d h im if I c o u ld as k a fe w ques t i ons . I expl ai ned t o hi m thatther e i s a l ar ge pr obl em on t he tur npi ke w i t h contr aband i n vehi cl e[s ] , and I expl ai ned bycontr aband w hat I w as r efe rr i ng t o w as w eapons , l ar ge amount s of ca s h, i l l egal drugs , s t ol en3

i t ems, w ant ed per s ons , t hats or tof thi ng. I as ked hi m i f he ha d anyof t hes e— anyt ype of c ont r aband i n hi s vehi cl e, s peci fi cal l yw eapons , and I as ked [a bout ] i l l egal drugs , r i ghtdow n t he l i ne. . . . H i s r es pons e w as : “N ot th a t I k n o w o f.” A p p . 9 5 . B e rk e b ile te stif ied th a t, fin d in g th is re sp o n se u n u su a l, “I e x p lain e d to h im th a t I
w oul dn’ tbe doi ng m yj ob i f I di dn’ tas k hi m i f he mi nded i f I s ear ched hi s vehi cl e. ” A pp. 9 6 . A c c o rd in g to B e rk e b ile , S k e f f e ry re s p o n d e d , “ [ Y ]o u c a n s e a rc h m yc a r.” A p p . 9 7 . B e r k e b i l e d i d s o , a n d d i s c o v e r e d m a r i j u a n a i n th e tru n k . H e th e n a r r e s t e d S k e f f e r y. S k ef fe ryd en ies th at he ev er g ran ted B erk eb il e c o n sen t t o sea rch h is car. Sk ef fe ry t es t i fi ed thatB erkebi l e per form ed the s ear ch w i t houtas ki ng forperm i s s i on, and thathe ( Skeffe ry ) w oul d nothave c ons ent ed i f as ked, gi ven thathe knew he had mar i j uana i n t he
car . A pp. 242. S k e f f e ry f ile d a m o tio n to s u p p re s s th e m a ri ju a n a , w h ic h th e D is tr ic t C o u rt d e n ie d . T he C our tfound that , “[i ] n cons i der at i on of the t ot al i t yof the ci r cumst ance s . . . [, ] the C o u rt f in d s T ro o p e r B e rk e b ile c re d ib le a n d c o n c lu d e s th a t D e f e n d a n t v o lu n tar ily pr ovi ded cons entt o T ooperB erkebi l e t o s ear ch” the ca r . Skeffe r ythen pl ed gui l t y , but
r es erved the r i ghtt o appea l t he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or dernott o s uppr es s . H e fi l ed thi s appea l aft ert he C our ti m pos ed a s ent ence of t i m e s erved, thr ee y ear s ’ s upervi s ed r el eas e, and a sp e c ial a ss e ss m e n t. O n a p p e a l, S k e f

f e ryp re se n ts o n lyo n e a rg u m e n t: th a t th e D istric t C o u rt c lea rly
err ed i n fi ndi ng t hathe cons ent ed t o t he w arr ant l es s s ear ch of hi s car . H e does not cont end thathe w as phy s i cal l yorm ent al l yi m pai r ed, northathe gave cons entunderW her e a c onvi ct ed al i en has been r emoved, the al i en’ s “havi ng a cha nce a tr eent er i ng 1 t he U ni t ed St at es i n t he di s cr et i on of the i m m i gr at i on author i t i es [as a r es ul tof the C our t ’ s deci s i on] i s s uffi ci entt o gi ve [a ] pet i t i onera per s onal s t ake i n t he l i t i gat i on that pr es ent s a l i ve ca s e orcontr over s y . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. H

am di , 4 3 2 F . 3 d 1 1 5 , 1 2 1 (2d C ir . 2005) . I ti s farfr om cl eart o us w hatthe i m m i gr at i on cons equenc es of vac at i ng the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s j udgm entw oul d be, part i cul ar l ybeca us e Skeff eryhas pr evi ous convi ct i ons and nei t herpar t yhas s uppl i ed us w i t h evi dence of the bas i s forhi s r ece nt re m o v a l. 4 coer ci on ort hr eat s . R ather , he cha l l enges the ver aci t yof the pol i ce of fi cer s ’ t es t i m ony that h e re init iat ed co n tact w ith B erk eb il e a n d told B erk eb il e h e c o u ld se arc h S k ef fe ry ’s
c a r . T h e Di s t r i c tCo u r tb e l i e v e d t h i s t e s t i mo n y , a n d we mu s tt o o , a s “ we wi l l n o tr e v i e w a di s t r i ctcour t ’ s cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i on. ” U nited S tates v. B etha nco urt , 65 F. 3d 1074, 1 0 7 8 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 5 ). Skeffe r yw as r ece nt l yr emoved t o J amai ca, and the part i es di s put e w hetherthi s act
r ender s Skeffe r y ’ s appea l m oot . W e nee d notdeci de thi s i s s ue, w hi ch w oul d r equi r e an ex am ination o f th e im m igrati o n -l aw co n seq u en ce s o f o u r va ca ti n g the D istri ct C o u rt ’s j udgm ent . A l t hough a fe der al cour tgener al l ym us tdet erm i ne i t s A r t i cl e I I I j ur i s di ct i on

1 p ri o r t o re a c h in g th e m e ri ts o f a c a s e , S teel C o . v. C it izen s for a B ett er E n v’t , 523 U . S. 83, 94 ( 1998) , an exc ept i on exi s t s w her e, as her e, contr ol l i ng pr ece denthas “for eor dai ned” th e o u tc o m e o n th e m e ri ts s o a s to d e n yre lie f , s e e S e a l e v . I

NS , 32 3 F . 3d 15 0, 15 7 (1st C ir. 2 0 0 3 ); C tr. f

or R eprod
. L aw & P ol’

y v. B ush , 3 0 4 F . 3 d 1 8 3 , 1 9 4

– 9 5 (2d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ); 13A C har l es A l an W r i ght , A r t hurR . M i l l er , & E dw ar d H . C ooper , Feder al Pr act i ce & Pr ocedur e § 3531. 15 ( 3d ed. 2007) ( “Supr eme C our tdeci s i ons thatm ays eem t o r eac h t he5

me r i t s wi t h o u td e c i d i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n a l c h a l l e n g e s a r e d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e [ f r o m St eel

C o. ’s gen eral rul e]. In som e, t he is sue on the m eri t s had b een resol ved i n p aral l el l i t i gati on , so t hatt he C our tw as notm aki ng l aw bya di s pos i t i on on t he mer i t s . ”) . A s Skeffe r yas ks us to d o th a t w h ich o u r p re c e d e n ts c lea rlyf o re c lo se — d istu rb th e D istric t C o u rt’s c re d ib ili ty f in d in g — w e re

je c t h is a rg u m e n t w ith o u t c o n s id e ri n g th e is s u e o f m o o tn e s s . F o rt h e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , we a f f i r m.