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 9-13-2010 

# U SA v . R ic ardo R h yme r 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 . 08-2697

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_2010

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 no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 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 no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . R ica r do R h yme r " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 628. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/628NOT 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. 08- 2697

_____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. RI CARDO RHY M ER, 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 the V i r gi n I s l ands ( C r i m i nal N o. 07- cr - 00041- 01) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H on. C ur t i s V . G om ez Subm i t t ed M ay4, 2010 B efore: S M ITH , C H A G A R E S , and JO R D A N , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed Sept ember13, 2010)

______________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

______________ C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udge. R i car do R hym erpl ed gui l t yt o t w o drug t r aff i cki ng cr i m es and r ece i ved a 60-T he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on under18 U . S. C . § 3231, and w e have j ur i s di ct i on 1 under18 U . S. C . § 3742 and 28 U . S. C . § 1291. 2 m ont h s ent ence . H i s at t or neyhas fi l ed a mot i on t o w i t hdr aw underA nder s v. C al i forni a, 386 U . S. 738 ( 1967) . W e w i l l gr antt he mot i on and af fi r m t he convi ct i on and s ent ence . 1 I. B eca us e w e w r i t e s ol el yfort he bene fi tof the part i es , w e onl ybr i efl ys um m ar i ze t he rel evan tfact s. A gent s of the D rug E nfor cementA dm i ni s t r at i on ( “D E A ”) w er e i nves t i gat i ng t he a p p e lla n t R ic a rd o R h ym e r ( “ R h ym e r” ) f o r s u s p e c te d tr a f

f ic k in g o f c o c a in e b a s e , a co n tr o ll ed n arc o ti c. O n Jan u ary2 6 , 2 0 0 7 , theyarran g ed to m ee t w ith R h ym er f o r a contr ol l ed tr ans act i on of coc ai ne bas e. W hen R hym erarr i ved, t he age nt s pl ace d R hym er underarr es t . A s t heydi d s o, R hym erat t empt ed t o di s pos e of a br ow n paperbag, w hi ch c o n ta in e d f

iv e g ra m s o f

a s u b s ta n c e w h ic h la te r t e s te d p o s itiv e f o r c o c a in e b a s e . R hym erw as i ndi ct ed and c har ged w i t h pos s es s i on of fi ve gr ams orm or e of coca i ne bas e w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e w i t hi n 1000 fee tof a s chool i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) and ( b) ( 1) ( B ) ( i i i ) and § 860( a) , as w el l as pos s es s i on of fi ve gr ams or m or e of c ocai ne bas e w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) and (b )( 1 )( B )( iii) . R hym erfi l ed a mot i on t o s uppr es s evi dence and a mot i on t o di s m i s s , bot h of w hi ch w er e deni ed byt he D i s t r i ctC our t . O n D ece m ber5, 2007, R hym erent er ed i nt o a3

p lea a g re e m e n t w ith th e G o v e rn m e n t. T h e G o v e rn m e n t ag re e d to d ro p th e f irst c h a rg e in e x c h a n g e f

o r R h ym e r’ s a g re e m e n t to p le a d g u ilty to th e s e c o n d c h a rg e . A s partof the plea agreem ent, R hy m er w ai ved his ri gh tt o ap peal hi s sent ence so l ong as i tfel l w i t hi n t he s t atut or ym axi m um . J oi ntA ppendi x ( “J A ”) 31- 32. A tt he pl ea col l oquy , R hym eracknow l edged thathe had r ead a nd under s t ood t he pl ea a gr eement , and t hathe under s t ood t hati f he pl ed gui l t yhe w oul d l i kel ygeta s ent ence of 37 t o 46 m ont hs of i m pr i s onm enti f he qua l i fi ed fort he s afe t yval ve pr ovi s i on, butatl eas t5 y ear s and up to a sta tu to rym a x im u m o f 4 0 y e a rs o f

im p riso n m e n t if h e d id n o t q u a lifyf o r th e sa f

e ty val ve pr ovi s i on. J A 39- 44. H e al s o acknow l edged thathe under s t ood t hatbypl eadi ng g u ilty , h e w a s w a iv in g a n u m b e r o f rig h ts, in c lu d in g , inte r a lia, th e rig h t to a p p e a l h is convi ct i on. J A 44- 45. T he D i s t r i ctC our thel d a number of s ent enci ng hear i ngs i n R hym er ’ s cas e, pr i m ar i l yt o det erm i ne w hetherornotR hym erqual i fi ed fort he “s afe t yval ve” pr ovi s i on of 18 U . S. C . § 3553( f) , w hi ch al l ow s a D i s t r i ctC our tt o s ent ence a def endantbel ow t he r el evants t atut or ym andat or ym i ni m um i f ce r t ai n condi t i ons ar e met . O ne of the r equi r ement s t o appl yt he s afe t yval ve i s t hatt he def endantm us tbe ful l yi nfor m at i ve and coo perat i ve w i t h law enfo rcem ent pr i or t o sentenci ng . A tt he sentenci ng heari ng s, R h ym e r a rg u e d th a t h e sh o u ld re c e iv e th e “ sa f e tyv a lv e .” T h e G o v e rn m e n t re p e a ted ly obj ect ed, cl ai m i ng t hathe had notgi ven them t he r equi r ed i nfor m at i on abouthi s cr i m e. A tt he fourt h and fi nal s ent enci ng hear i ng, hel d on A pr i l 10, 2007, t he D i s t r i ct4

C our t , aft erl earni ng t hatR hym erhad s t i l l noti nfor m ed l aw enfor cementfr om w hom he r ece i ved the coc ai ne bas e, t o w hom he pai d t he pr ocee ds fr om s el l i ng t he coc ai ne bas e, and w ho he w as i n cont actw i t h abouts el l i ng t he coc ai ne bas e, hel d t hatR hym erdi d not m eett he r equi r ement s fort he “s afe t yval ve” i n 3553( f) , and he w as s ent ence d t o t he m a n d a to ry m in im u m o f 6 0 m o n th s o f

im p ri s o n m e n t. R hym erfi l ed a t i m el ypr o s e not i ce of appea l t o t hi s C our t . H i s couns el al s o fi l ed a tim e lyn o tice o f

a p p e a l an d th e re a f

ter f iled a n A n d e rs b rie f

a n d a m o tio n re q u e stin g to b e re lie v e d a s c o u n s e l, c la im in g th a t R h ym e r’ s a p p e a l r a is e d n o n o n -f ri v o lo u s is s u e s . C ouns el fi l ed a t i m el ynot i ce of appea l , t her eaf

t erm oved t o w i t hdr aw , and fi l ed an A n d e rs b ri e f

in s u p p o rto f

th e m o tio n . II. C ouns el m ays eek t o w i t hdr aw fr om r epr es ent at i on i f, aft era cons ci ent i ous e x a m in a tio n o f

th e D istric t C o u rt re c o rd , h e o r sh e is “ p e rsu a d e d th a t th e a p p e a l p re se n ts no i ssue of ev en argu able m eri t. . . . ” 3d C i r. L . A . R . 10 9. 2(a) (2010 ); see al so A nd ers , 386 U . S. at744. E val uat i on of an A nder s m ot i on r equi r es a tw ofol d i nqui r y : ( 1) w hether couns el has t hor oughl yexami ned the r ecor d forappea l abl e i s s ues and has expl ai ned i n a br i ef w hyanys uch i s s ues ar e fr i vol ous ; 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 . See U ni t ed St at es v. Y oul a, 241 F. 3d 296, 300 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 1 ). If

w e d e ter m in e th a t “th e A n d e rs b rie f in iti a llya p p e a rs a d e q u a te o n its5

fac e, ” the s econd s t ep of ouri nqui r yi s “gui ded . . . bythe A nder s br i ef i t s el f. ” I d. at301 (qu o tat ion m ark s an d cit ati o n o m itted). W e conc l ude thatcouns el ’ s A nder s br i ef i s adequa t e, and thus , i tw i l l gui de our i ndepende ntr evi ew of the r ecor d. C ouns el i dent i fi es t hr ee pos s i bl e cl ai m s t hatR hym er cou l d m ake o n ap peal: (1) w hethert he D i stri ctC ou rt ’s den i al of h i s m oti on t o sup press and mot i on t o di s m i s s w er e i n err or ; ( 2) w hetherhi s gui l t ypl ea w as i nt el l i gentand vol unt ary ; and ( 3) w hethert he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s det erm i nat i on t hathe di d notm eett he § 3 5 5 3 (f) req u ir em en ts t o b e se n tenc ed b elow the s tatu torym inim u m w as in erro r. O ur in d e p e n d e n t r e v ie w o f

th e re c o rd c o n f

ir m s th a t th e s e is s u e s a re w h o lly f ri v o lo u s . T hi s C our thas hel d t hata def endantw ho pl eads gui l t ym ayonl ychal l enge a D istric t C o u rt’s r u lin g s o n p re trial m o tio n s if h e o r sh e e x p licitlyre se rv e d th e rig h t to ch all en g e su ch a d ec isi o n o n ap p ea l. U n it ed S tat es v . B en tz, 2 1 F . 3 d 3 7 , 3 8 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 4 ); U n ite d S ta te s v . H u f f , 8 7 3 F .2 d 7 0 9 , 7 1 2 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 9 ). H er e, i ti s undi s put ed th a t R h ym e r m a d e n o s u c h re s e rv a tio n a s p a rt o f h is u n c o n d itio n a l p le a o f g u ilty. T h e re f o re , h e m a yn o t c h a lle n g e th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s ru lin g s o n th e s e p re tr ia l m o tio n s . T he nextpos s i bl e cl ai m i s t hatR hym er ’ s gui l t ypl ea w as notvol unt aryand intell igen t, b ec au se h e h ad a lea rnin g d isab il ity . H o w ev er, suc h a c lai m h as n o su p p o rt w hat s oeveri n t he r ecor d. T he pl ea a gr eementw as pr es ent ed t o R hym eri n w r i t i ng, w hi ch he s i gned, and he w as engage d i n a veryfr ank and thor ough pl ea c ol l oquyw i t h t he M agi s t r at e J udge pr i ort o bei ng s ent ence d, i ncl udi ng an expl i ci ts t at ementbyt he6

M agi s t r at e J udge, t o w hi ch R hym eragr eed, t hathi s gui l t ypl ea w oul d m ean f or fei t i ng a n u m b e r o f

ri g h ts , in c lu d in g th e ri g h t to a p p e a l. J A 4 5 . A tt he pl ea c ol l oquy , i tw as r evea l ed thatR hym erhad an e l eventh- gr ade e ducat i on, w a s f u llylit e ra te, a n d h a d re a d a n d re v iew e d th e d o c u m e n ts f iled in th e c a se o n h is b e h a lf b yh is at torn ey . JA 3 9 . H e w as e n g ag ed an d resp o n sive to the M ag istrate Ju d g e’s s t at ement s and ques t i ons t hr oughoutt he col l oquy , and gave everypos s i bl e i ndi cat i on t hat h e f u ll yu n d erstoo d an d co m p reh en d ed the n ature an d co n seq u en ce s o f h is gu il typ lea. I n t he ent i r etyof the r ecor d, t her e i s no obj ect i ve evi dence pr es ent ed thatR hym erhad any s or tof l earni ng di s abi l i t y . T he onl yi ndi cat i on of a l earni ng di s abi l i tycomes fr om R hym er ’ s at t or ney , w ho br i efl ym ent i oned i t s exi s t ence , buts t i l l s t at ed that“ther e’ s no q u e stio n in m ym in d ” th a t R h ym e r f u llyu n d e rsto o d th e n a tu re o f th e c h a rg e s a g a in st h im a n d w a s c o m p e te n t to e n te r a g u ilty p le a . J A 4 0 . R hym er ’ s fi nal pos s i bl e cl ai m i s t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed w hen i thel d t hathe w a s in e lig ib le f

o r th e 3 5 5 3 (f

) “ sa f e tyv a lv e ” p ro v isio n w h ich w o u ld h a v e m a d e it p o ss ib le forhi m t o r ece i ve a s ent ence of l es s t han 5 y ear s of i m pr i s onm ent . H ow ever , as par tof the p lea a g ree m en t, R h ym er e x p li cit lyw aive d h is r igh t t o ap p ea l th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s s ent enci ng det erm i nat i ons s o l ong as t heyw er e “w i t hi n t he maxi m um pr ovi ded i n t he s t atut e( s ) of convi ct i on ( ort he manneri n w hi ch thats ent ence w as det erm i ned) . ” J A 31- 32. “W ai ver s of appe al s , i f ent er ed know i ngl yand vol unt ar i l y , ar e val i d, unl es s t hey w o rk a m iscarri ag e o f ju sti ce . ” U n it ed S tat es v . K h att ak , 2 7 3 F . 3 d 5 5 7 , 5 6 3 (3d C ir .7

2 0 0 1 ). R h ym er sign ed the p lea a g ree m en t, JA 3 3 , an d h e a ck n o w ledg ed in o p en co u rt t hathe had done s o and under s t ood t he cons equenc es of s i gni ng t hi s document . J A 38- 45. O uri nqui r yi nt o an appe l l at e w ai veri n an A nder s cas e i s t o ens ur e thatt he D i s t r i ct C our tconfi r m ed thats uch a w ai verw as agr eed t o know i ngl yand vol unt ar i l y . H er e, t he C our tm ethodi cal l yw entovert he pl ea a gr eementand i t s cons equenc es w i t h R hym erat t he pl ea c ol l oquy , and appr opr i at el yas cert ai ned thathi s gui l t ypl ea w as ent er ed know i ngl yand vol unt ar i l yas pr ovi ded fori n R ul e 11 of the Feder al R ul es of C r i m i nal Pr ocedur e. I ti s cl eart hatR hym eragr eed t o w ai ve hi s r i ghtt o appea l t he s ent ence im p o s e d b yth e D is tr ic t C o u rt . III . W e w i l l gr antcouns el ’ s m ot i on t o w i t hdr aw and w i l l aff i r m t he j udgm entof the D is tr ic t C o u rt .