2009 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 2-6-2009 

# U SA v . C ault on 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 . 07-4653

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_2009

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 2009 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 . C ault on" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1909. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1909NOT 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- 4653 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. BI L L Y C AUL T ON, 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 M i ddl e D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a D i s tr i ctC our tN o. 07- cr - 00089 D i s tr i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e Sy l vi a H . R ambo Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

J anuary29, 2009 B e f o re : S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge, A M B R O , a n d S M IT H , C i r cui tJudges ( Fi l ed: February6, 2009) OP I NI ON

S M IT H , C i r cui tJudge. B i l l yC aul t on pl eade d gui l tyt o pos s es s i on and i nt entt o di s tr i but e cr ack c ocai ne under21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) . T he D i s tr i ctC our ts ent ence d C aul t on t o s eventy - ei ght m onths of i m pr i s onm enton D ece m ber6, 2007. C aul t on fi l ed a t i m el ynot i ce of appea l onT he D i stri ctC ou rthad j uri sdi ct i on pu rs uan tt o 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 23 1. W e exerci se 1 ap p ell ate jurisdicti o n u n d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 an d 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 7 4 2 (a). 2 D e c e m b e r 1 3 , 2 0 0 7 . A f ter re v iew in g th e re c o rd in th is c a se , C a u lto n ’s c o u n se l m o v e d to 1 w i thdr aw pur s uantt o A n d e rs v . C a lif o rn ia , 3 8 6 U . S . 7 3 8 (19 6 7 ). I n A nd ers , the Supr eme C our ts t at ed thatthe “c ons t i tut i onal r equi r ementof s ubs t ant i al equal i tyand fa i rpr oces s ” means thatappel l at e couns el m us tactas an adv ocate for the d efen dan t . 38 6 U . S . at74 4. T hu s, cou nsel ’s ro le a s a d v o c a te r e q u ire s th a t h e su p p o rt h is c lien t’s a p p e a l to th e b e st o f h is ab il ity . O f c o u rse, i f c o u n sel find s h is case to b e w h o ll yfrivo lou s, af ter a con sci enti ou s exam i nati on of it , he sho uld so adv i se the co urtand request p e r m i s s i o n t o w i th d r a w . T h a tr e q u e s tm u s t , h o w e v e r , b e a c c o m p a n i e d b y a br i ef r efe r r i ng t o anythi ng i n the r ecor d thatm i ghtar guabl ys uppor tthe a p p e a l. I d. A s w e expl ai ned i n U n itedS ta tes v . Y

o u la , 241 F. 3d 296, 300 ( 3d C i r . 2001) , the A nd ers b rie f

m u st d e m o n stra te th a t co u n se l h a s “ th o ro u g h lye x a m in e d th e re c o rd in s ear ch of a ppeal abl e i s s ues , ” and i tm us t“expl ai n w hythe i s s ues ar e fr i vol ous . ” A ccor di ngl y , ouri nqui r yi s tw ofol d: ( 1) w hethercouns el adequa t el yful fi l l ed the r equi r ement s of A nd ers ; an d (2 ) “ w h e th e r a n in d e p e n d e n t re v iew o f th e re c o rd p re se n ts anynonfr i vol ous i s s ues . ” I d. ( ci t i ng U

n itedS ta tes v . M

a rv in , 2 1 1 F . 3 d 7 7 8 , 7 8 0 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 )); see al

so A nd ers , 3 8 6 U . S . at 74 4 (ex p lai n ing that the c o u rtm u st pro ce ed , “a fter a f u ll e x a m in a tio n o f

a ll th e p ro c e e d in g s , to d e c id e w h e th e r t h e c a s e is w h o lly f ri v o lo u s ” ). If re v iew f a ils to re v e a l an yn o n f

riv o lo u s is su e s, th e c o u rt “ m a yg ra n t co u n se l’s re q u e st to w i thdr aw and di s m i s s the appe al . ” A nd ers , 386 U . S. at744. A ft er consi deri ng cou nsel ’s A nd ers b rie f , w e a re sa tisf

ied th a t h e th o ro u g h ly3

exami ned the r ecor d fori s s ues of ar guabl e mer i tand ful fi l l ed the r equi r ement s of A nd ers . I n fac t , w e comm end couns el forhi s obvi ous att ent i on t o and cons i der at i on of the i s s ues p rese n ted. C o u n sel co rrectl yo b serv ed that, b ec au se C au lt o n p lead ed g u il ty , C au lt o n ’s appea l i s l i m i t ed t o t he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s j ur i s di ct i on, the val i di tyof the gui l typl ea, and the le g a lity o f

th e s e n te n c e . U

ni t ed Stat es v. B r oce , 4 8 8 U. S . 5 6 3 , 5 7 0 - 7 5 ( 1 9 8 9 ) . As C aul t on’ s couns el not ed, ther e i s no bas i s fordi s put i ng the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s j ur i s di ct i on. W ith re sp e c t to th e v a lid ityo f C a u lto n ’s g u iltyp lea , co u n se l f u llysa tisf

ied h is o b li g ati o n u n d er A nd ers . H e cons i der ed notonl yw hetherthe gui l typl ea pr ocee di ng compl i ed w i th t he r equi r ement s of B o y k i n v . A la b a ma , 39 5 U . S . 23 8 (196 9), bu tal so addr es s ed ea ch of the r equi r ement s of Feder al R ul e of Cri m i nal Pr ocedur e 11. C ouns el c ited to th e re c o rd to f

u rth e r d e m o n stra te c o m p lian c e w ith th e o b lig a tio n s s e t f o rth in B o y k in a n d R u le 1 1 . C ouns el al s o cons ci ent i ous l yexami ned C aul t on’ s s ent ence . Pr i ort o s ent enci ng, C aul t on’ s tr i al couns el obj ect ed t o the s ent enci ng r ange on the gr ound thatthe go vernm ent had n ot pr ov en b ey on d a reasonab l e do ub tthe q uan t i tyof co cai ne b ase pos s es s ed byC aul t on. D ur i ng the s ent enci ng hear i ng, the D i s tr i ctC our thear d ar gum ent on thi s i s s ue. A ft erdi s cus s i ng and cons i der i ng tw o l ab r eport s , the D i s tr i ctC our tfound th a t C a u lto n p o ss e ss e d 9 4 .4 g ra m s o f c o c a in e b a se . B e f

o re th is C o u rt, co u n se l co rre c tly not ed thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tw as perm i t t ed t o m ake s uch fi ndi ngs bya pr eponder ance of the e v iden ce u n d er U

ni t ed Stat es v. G r i er , 4 7 5 F .3 d 5 5 6 , 5 6 8 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) ( e n b a n c ). O uri ndepende ntr evi ew of the r ecor d confi r m s thatthe D i s tr i ctC our thad s uffi ci entW e n o te th a t, co n sis ten t w ith L o c a l A p p e llate R u le 1 0 9 .2 (a ) o f th e T h ird C irc u it, 2 couns el advi s ed C aul t on of hi s i nt ent i on t o fi l e an A nd ers br i ef a nd thatC aul t on w as ent i t l ed t o fi l e a pro se br i ef. C aul t on di d notfi l e a pro se b ri e f ra is in g a n yo th e r i s s u e s . 4 e v id e n c e to s u p p o rt its f in d in g a n d c o m p u ta tio n o f C a u lto n ’s s e n te n c in g ra n g e . I n s u m, we a g r e e wi th c o u n s e l ’ s a s s e s s me n to f Ca u l t o n ’ s a p p e a l . Ou ro wn 2 in d e p e n d e n t r e v ie w o f

th e re c o rd f

a ils to re v e a l a n yn o n f

ri v o lo u s is s u e s f

o r a p p e a l. A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l gr antcouns el ’ s m ot i on t o w i thdr aw and w i l l aff i r m the j udgm entof th e D istric t C o u rt e n ter e d o n D e c e m b e r 6 , 2 0 0 7 . W e c e rtify th a t th e iss u e s p re se n ted in the appe al l ack l egal m er i tand thus do notr equi r e the fi l i ng of a pe t i t i on forw r i tof ce rt iorari w ith the S u p rem e C o u rt . 3 d C ir . L A R 1 0 9 . 2 (b).