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 12-18-2008 

# U SA v . Whitted 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 . 07-3896

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 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 . Whitt e d " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 76. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/761 NOT 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. 07- 3896 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. J AM ES W HI TTED a / k / a M OH AM ED J ames W hi t t ed, 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 E as t ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a D i s tr i ctC our tN o. 05- cr - 00598- 2 D i s tr i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e M i chae l M . B ay l s on Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

D ece m ber12, 2008 B efore: M C K E E , S M ITH , and R O T H , C i rcui tJudg es

( Fi l ed: D ece m ber18, 2008) OP I NI ON S M IT H , C i r cui tJudge . A gr and j uryforthe U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe East ern D i s tr i ctofT he D i stri ctC ou rthad j uri sdi ct i on un der 18 U . S . C . § 3 23 1. W e exerci se 1 a p p e lla te ju ri s d ic tio n p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 a n d 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 4 2 (a ). See U ni t ed Stat es v. C ooper , 4 3 7 F . 3 d 3 2 4 , 3 2 7

– 2 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). Be c a u s e we wi l l g r a n tth e Go v e rn me n t ’ s mo t i o n t o r e ma n d f o rr e s e n t e n c i n g , we 2 d o n o t a d d re s s th e m e ri ts o f th e le g a lity o f

W h itte d ’s s e n te n c e . 2 Penns y l vani a r eturned an i ndi ctm enti n O ct oberof 2006, char gi ng M i chae l H arr i s and J a m e s W h itte d w ith , i nt eral i a, cons pi r i ng t o di s tr i but e fi ve ki l ogr ams orm or e of c ocai ne i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 846. A s uper cedi ng i ndi ctm entadded c har ges of ai di ng and abett i ng thr ee otheroffe ns es : ( 1) di s tr i but i ng coca i ne i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . §§ 841( b) a n d 2 ; (2 ) th e p o ss e ss io n o f a f ire a rm in f

u rth e ra n c e o f

a d ru g tra f

f ick in g c rim e in vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . §§ 924( c) and 2; and ( 3) pos s es s i on of a f i r earm bya convi ct ed fel on i n vi ol at i on 18 U . S. C . §§ 922( g) and 2. A j uryfound W hi t t ed gui l tyof al l four c o u n ts. T h e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia s e n te n c e d W h itte d , in tera lia , to 4 2 0 m o n th s o f im p ri s o n m e n t. T h is t im elyap p ea l fo ll o w ed . T o it s cre d it , the G o v ern m en t con ce d es th at th ere 1 w a s a n e rr o ri n s e n t e n c i n g W h i t t e d a n d r e q u e s t s r e m a n d f o rr e s e n t e n c i n g . A c c o r d i n g l y, w e w i l l aff

i r m W hi t t ed’ s convi ct i on, butw i l l vaca t e hi s s ent ence and r emand for r es ent enci ng. W hi t t ed’ s couns el fi l ed an appel l at e br i ef, chal l engi ng both the convi ct i on and the lega li tyo f th e se n tenc e. W ith reg ard to the fo rm er, co u n sel arg u ed that the D istri ct C o u rt 2 err ed: ( 1) i n deny i ng the mot i on t o s uppr es s phy s i cal evi dence ; and ( 2) bydeny i ng W hi t t ed’ s m ot i on forj udgm entof ac qui t t al on the § 924( c) char ge. I n addi t i on, at W h itte d ’s b e h e s t, c o u n s e l b ri e f e d le g a l is s u e s w h ic h W h itte d h a s re q u e s te d b e ra is e d .A ft erthe br i efi ng i n t hi s appea l w as compl et ed, W hi t t ed’ s couns el fi l ed a mot i on 3 t o w i thdr aw , al l egi ng thats he had both a mandat oryand a pe rm i s s i ve bas i s for w i thdr aw al . W e w i l l gr antcouns el ’ s m ot i on t o w i thdr aw , and r el i eve he rof her obl i gat i on t o r epr es entW hi t t ed on r emand. W hi t t ed t aci t l yacknow l edges thatthe i s s ue w as notr ai s ed i n hi s appel l at e br i ef, 4 s t at i ng: “To t he ext entthathi s att orneyfai l ed t o r ai s e the i s s ue of s uppr es s i ng the phy s i cal evi dence s ei zed a s di r ectr es ul tof M r . W hi t t ed’ s arr es t , hi s att orneyw as in e f f e c tiv e a s c o u n se l as h e c o u ld h a v e h a d n o re a so n a b le b a sis f o r d o in g so .” W e w ill notaddr es s the mer i t s of thi s i neff ect i venes s cl ai m i nas m uch as w e have expl ai ned that ourpr efe r ence i s t o addr es s i neff ect i venes s cl ai m s on col l at er al r evi ew , part i cul ar l yw hen th e re c o rd is in s u f

f ic ie n t. U ni t ed Stat es v. Thornton , 327 F. 3d 268, 272 ( 3d C i r . 2003)

3 O u r L o c a l A p p e llate R u les p e rm it th e f ili n g o f a p ro se b rie f

b ya n a p p e llan t w h e n h is couns el has fi l ed a br i ef pur s uantt o A n d e rs v . C a lif o rn ia , 3 8 6 U .S . 7 3 8 (1 9 6 7 ). See 3d C i r . L . A . R . 109. 2( a) . W e do nototherw i s e ent ert ai n pr o s e br i efs w hen a c ouns el ed br i ef h a s b e e n f

iled . A c c o rd in g ly , w e re jec t co u n se l’s a ttem p t to p re se n t issu e s ra ise d so lely pr o s e w i thi n the couns el ed br i ef. 3 A ccordi ng t o W hitt ed, the D i stri ctC ou rterr ed b yden y i ng his m oti on t o sup press al l ph y si cal evidence sei zed f rom W hitt ed’s pers on , as the o ffi cers l acked probab l e cause fo r his w arran tl ess a rrest. C o n tr aryto F ed era l R u le of C ri m inal P roc ed u re 1 2 (b)(3 ), W hi t t ed di d notfi r s tr ai s e thi s i s s ue i n the D i s tr i ctC our t . A tthe hea r i ng befor e the D i s tr i ctC our t , W hi t t ed ar gued onl ythatthe w arr anti s s ued t o s ear ch the hot el r oom l acke d pr obabl e ca us e. A pp. 2544–47. T he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s rul i ng on the mot i on cons i der ed onl ythe ques t i on of pr obabl e ca us e forthe s ear ch w arr ant , and conc l uded that p ro b a b le c a u se e x iste d . B e c a u se R u le 1 2 (e ) d ire c ts th a t “[ a ] p a rtyw a iv e s a n yR u le 1 2 (b)(3 ) de fe n se . . . n o t r aised , ” a n d b ec au se W h itted d id n o t cha ll en g e w h ethe r th ere w as pr obabl e ca us e forhi s arr es tpr i ort o tr i al , w e conc l ude thatthe i s s ue i s w ai ved. See 4( ci t i ng Mas s ar o v. U ni t ed Stat es , 5 3 8 U .S . 5 0 0 (2 0 0 3 )) . 4 U n itedS ta tes v . L o c ke tt , 4 0 6 F .3 d 2 0 7 , 2 1 2 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). T he D i s tr i ctC our tal s o err ed, i n W hi t t ed’ s vi ew , bydeny i ng hi s R ul e 29 mot i on on the convi ct i on of ai di ng and abe t t i ng the us e of a fi r earm i n fur ther ance of a drug tr aff i cki ng offe ns e i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . §§ 924( c) and 2. W e “musts us t ai n the ver di cti f ther e i s s ubs t ant i al evi dence , vi ew ed i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the G overnm ent , t o uphol d the j ury ’ s deci s i on. ” B urks v. U ni t ed Stat es , 437 U . S. 1, 16 (1 9 7 8 ). W hi t t ed ac know l edged the G overnm ent ’ s r el i ance on P i nker t on v. U ni t ed Stat es , 3 2 8 U .S . 6 4 0 (1 9 4 6 ), b u t as se rte d th a t P i nker t on di d notappl ybeca us e i tw as not re a so n a b lyf

o re se e a b le to h im th a t H a rris w o u ld u se th e f ire a rm in f

u rth e ra n c e o f

th e ir c o n sp ira c yto d istrib u te c o c a in e . B a se d o n o u r re v iew o f th e trial te stim o n y , p a rticu lar ly thatof H arr i s , w e di s agr ee. H arr i s expl ai ned thathe had the fi r earm r ecove r ed fr om t he h o tel ro o m b e c a u se h e h a d p u rc h a se d c o c a in e th a t d a y . H e tes tifie d th a t h e re g u lar ly carr i ed the fi r earm w hen pur chas i ng coca i ne, thatW hi t t ed knew thathe gene r al l yw as a rm e d w h e n th e yp u rc h a se d c o c a in e , an d th a t W h itt e d u su a llya sk e d if H a rris h a d h is f ire a rm w ith h im . T h e se f a c ts a re su f

f icie n t to a llo w a ju ryto f in d b e y o n d a re a so n a b le doubtthati tw as r eas onabl yfor es eea bl e t o W hi t t ed thatH arr i s w oul d us e the fi r earm , as h e d id o n th e d a yo f

th e ira rr e s t, in f

u rt h e ra n c e o f

a d ru g tr a f

f ic k in g c ri m e . U

ni t ed Stat es v. C as i ano , 113 F. 3d 420, 427 ( 3d C i r . 1997) . W e r ej ectW hi t t ed’ s cont ent i on thatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed bydeny i ng hi s R ul e 29 mot i on on the § 924 convi ct i on.5

F o r th e a b o v e sta ted re a so n s, w e w ill a f f irm W h itt e d ’s c o n v ictio n , b u t w ill v a c a te h is s e n ten c e a n d w ill re m a n d f o r re se n ten c in g . In a d d iti o n , w e w ill g ra n t th e m o tio n to w ith d ra w f

iled b yW h itt e d ’s c o u n se l.