2003 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
10-24-2003 

# U S A v . M e nde z P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 02-2489

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t 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 sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2003 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 sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" U SA v . M e ndez " (2003). 2003 D e cisio n s . P ape r 188. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003/188NOT PRE CEDENT IAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT

NO. 02-2489

UNITED S TATES OF AMERI CA

v. MARTIRES NOVA M ENDEZ

a/k/a HIJO a/k/aNOVAS M ENDEZ a/k/aMARTIRES NOVA PEREZ

Martires Nova M endez, Appellant

On A ppeal Fro m the U nited States D istrict Court For the East ern District of Pennsy lvania (D.C. Crim. Action No. 01-cr -00030-1) District Judge: H onorab le Harve y Bartle, III

Submitte d Pursuant to Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

October 17, 2003 BE FO RE : SL OV ITE R, R OT H a nd S TA PL ET ON , Circuit Judges (Opinion Fi led: Oct ober 24, 2003)

OPINI ON OF THE COURT2

ST AP LE TO N, Circuit

Judge : Ap pellan t M aitres N ova M ende z pled guilty to co nspira cy to distribu te more than one ki logram of her oin in vi olati on of 21 U.S.C. § 846, dist ribut ion and ai ding and abett ing the di stribution of he roin wit hin 1000 feet

of a school in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 860 and 862, aggravat ed ill egal re entry after deportation in vi olati on of 8 U.S .C. § 13 26( a) (b )( 2) , and b ei ng afel on i n po ss es si on o f a g un i n vi ol at io n of 18 U. S. C. § 922(g ). He w as sentence d to 100 mon ths of imp risonmen t, to be followe d by 10 years of supervi sed rel ease.

After fil ing a timely a

ppeal, defense counselfile d a motion t o withdraw as counsel and a

brief in support of

that mot ion pursuant to And ers v. C aliforn ia , 386 U. S. 738 (1967). Defense counsel de termine d after a conscie ntious review of the record t hat “the re ar e no non -friv olo us is sue s fo r rev iew .”

In accordance with the mandate of Anders , we have perfor med an independent

review of the record t o determi ne whether i t pres ents any non-fri volous issue. Because we conclude t hat it does not, we will affi rm the judgment of the Dist

rict Cou rt an d gr an t d ef

en se co uns el ’s mot io n t o wi th dr aw. For the r easons set

forth i n counsel’ s brie f, the record demonst rates that t

he District Cou rt had jurisdiction to acce pt Nov a M endez’s p leas, that those pleas w ere knowing, int elli gent, and voluntary , and that his sentence was consist ent with t he Guidelines.1 Nova M endez als o points to a ref erence i n the ple a agreement to U.S.S.G. “§ 2D1.2(b)(1) ,” a subs ecti on that doe s not exi st, and suggest s that he was not sent enced under “the guideline most appli cable t o the offense of convict ion.” The plea agre ement reference, view ed in con text, is clearly a ty pograp hical error for § 2 D1.1(b )(1). Mo re importantly , the present ence report, a dopted by the Dist rict Court, c orrect ly

identi fied the Gu ideli ne s ectio n un der wh ich th e gu n en han cem ent w as im pos ed, i.e

. , § 2D1 .1(b)(1). 3 In N ova M ende z’s sup plem ental pro se brief, h e adv ance s three argu men ts: (1) the U.S.C.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) e nhancement for pos sessi on of a fire arm in connection with a drug offe nse was not suppor ted by the rec ord; ( 2) the § 3B1. 1(c) enhanc ement for a lead ership role w as no t supp orted b y the reco rd; and (3) trial co unse l was ineffective in suggesting to him that the government would see k a “safet y val ve” reduct ion under 18 U.S.C . § 3553(f

). 1 Under § 2D1.1, app. note 3, if a weapon is present , the gun enhancement should be appl ied “unl ess it is cl early

improbable that t

he weapon was connected to t he offense. ” The conspir acy t o market drugs in bulk was on- going when Nova Mendez w as arrested at his ho me e arly on the mo rning of Ja nuar y 18, 200 1. A hand gun loade d w ith six rou nds o f ho llow poin t amm unition wa s fou nd at th at time u nder the clo thes in h is bedroo m. Giv en the natu re of the w eapon , the nature of the amm unition, No va M endez’s ready access t o the gun, and the i llega lit y of hi s possess ion of it (both because of his prior convict ions and hi s stat us as an i llega l ali en), t

he Distr ict Court

cannot be faulted for decli ning to find improbable a connecti on between the weapon and Nova Mendez’s drug distribut ion. Nova M endez was at t he center of the di stribution cons piracy , and the4

enhancement for

a leader ship rol e is al so and amply supporte d by t

he record. That was undoubtedly

why he st ipulat ed in his plea agr eement that such an enhancement

was appropri ate. Nova M endez’s i neffecti ve assi stance of counsel cl aim is not

ripe for review. Whil e he impli es that his attorney

misled hi m in discus sing the consequences of his plea , there is n o reco rd reg arding any con versa tion be twee n the d efen dant a nd h is attor ney. If the c laim i s to be pur sued, i t willhave to be i n a § 2255 proceedi ng where an appropri ate re cord can be devel oped.

The jud gmen t of the D istrict Court will be A FFIR ME D, and counse l’s motion t o withdraw willbe grante d.5

TO THE C LERK:

Please fi le the foregoing Not Pr ecedenti al Opinion.

/s/ Walter K. St aplet on Circuit Judge