Court Opinion

ID: 9947364
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-04 18:00:53.659813+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:26:23.648502
License: Public Domain

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

                        UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                             FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                                 _______________

                                      No. 23-1510
                                    _______________

                            UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

                                             v.

                                  MAURICE THOMAS,
                                             Appellant

                                    _______________

                     On Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
                              (D.C. No. 2-11-cr-00618-003)
                       District Judge: Honorable Cynthia M. Rufe
                                    _______________

                      Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
                                 on February 2, 2024

               Before: KRAUSE, PORTER, and CHUNG, Circuit Judges

                                  (Filed: March 4, 2024)

                                    _______________

                                       OPINION *
                                    _______________

*
 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, under I.O.P. 5.7, is not binding
precedent.
KRAUSE, Circuit Judge.

       Maurice Thomas appeals his new sentence, imposed by the District Court in 2023,

which mirrors his 2013 sentence despite (1) his purported rehabilitation in prison; and

(2) the vacatur of his § 924(c)(1) conviction. Thomas’s counsel has moved to withdraw

under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and 3d Cir. L.A.R. 109.2, asserting that

there are no non-frivolous grounds for appeal. The Government concurs. Because we

also perceive no non-frivolous issues, we will grant counsel’s motion and affirm.

I.     BACKGROUND

       After a violent home invasion in which Thomas held a naked man and his

pregnant girlfriend at gunpoint, Thomas pleaded guilty to three charges: conspiracy to

commit Hobbs Act robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), attempted Hobbs Act

robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 1951(a), and carrying and using a firearm in

connection with a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 924(c)(1). The

District Court sentenced Thomas to 120 months in prison, varying upward from the

Guidelines recommendation of 97 to 106 months to account for the “serious” nature of

Thomas’s crimes. App. 185. Thomas did not appeal.

       While serving his sentence, Thomas showed good behavior, took professional-

development and life-skills courses, and earned his GED. Save for two minor

disciplinary infractions, Thomas was by all accounts a model inmate.

       In 2022, after the Supreme Court held that attempted Hobbs Act robbery is not a

“crime of violence” as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A), United States v. Taylor, 142

S. Ct. 2015, 2019, 2025–26 (2022), the District Court vacated Thomas’s § 924(c)(1)

                                            2
conviction and ordered resentencing on the remaining two counts. In 2023 the District

Court reimposed the 120-month prison sentence, again varying upward—this time from a

Guidelines recommendation of 70 to 87 months—based on the “serious violence of . . .

[t]he acts here.” App. 268. Thomas now appeals that sentence.

II.    DISCUSSION 1

       Counsel’s filing of an Anders brief requires us to determine “(1) whether [that

brief] fulfills the requirements of [3d Cir.] L.A.R. 109.2(a); and (2) whether an

independent review of the record presents any non-frivolous issues.” United States v.

Langley, 52 F.4th 564, 569 (3d Cir. 2022). Here, we answer the first question in the

affirmative and the second in the negative.

       A.     The Adequacy of Counsel’s Anders Brief

       An Anders brief is adequate under L.A.R. 109.2(a) if it “(1) demonstrates to this

Court that [counsel] has thoroughly examined the record in search of appealable issues,

and (2) explains why those issues are frivolous.” Id. Counsel’s brief here meets these

requirements: It reflects a good-faith, conscientious examination of the District Court

record, includes a completed Anders checklist, and explains why the arguments Thomas

could raise on appeal lack merit. 2

1
  The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231, and we have jurisdiction
under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 and 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the District Court’s sentence
for abuse of discretion, assessing both substantive and procedural reasonableness. Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). We review those issues not raised before the
District Court for plain error. United States v. Brito, 979 F.3d 185, 190 (3d Cir. 2020).
2
  Although the Anders brief “sketches a potential objection,” noting that the District
Court could have given greater weight to Thomas’s rehabilitation, that objection “merely
represents counsel’s best effort to conjure an issue that Thomas might present.” Gov’t
                                              3
       B.     Our Independent Review of the Record

       Given the adequacy of the Anders brief, “we may limit our review of the record to

the issues counsel raised,” id., all of which relate to the reasonableness of Thomas’s

sentence. Our review confirms that Thomas’s new sentence is neither procedurally nor

substantively unreasonable.

              1.     Procedural Reasonableness

       The District Court did not err procedurally when it resentenced Thomas to 120

months in prison. 3 The Court used the correct guidelines range; it meaningfully

considered the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including the nature of the offense, the

need for the sentence imposed, and the need to provide restitution to the victims; and it

provided a thorough explanation regarding its upward variance and its reimposition of

Thomas’s original sentence.

       No argument in Thomas’s pro se brief compels the opposite conclusion. Thomas

contends that the District Court erred when it (1) did not give “due and proper weight” to

his rehabilitation; (2) imposed a larger upward variance on resentencing than at initial

sentencing; and (3) changed the terms on his Hobbs Act counts from 60 months

(concurrent) to 120 months (concurrent). Pro Se Br. 3. But the District Court did

Br. 14. Counsel “clearly states that the [Court] did consider the rehabilitation issue,” and
he explains why handing down the same sentence despite Thomas’s rehabilitation was
not unreasonable. Id.
3
  A district court commits procedural error by, for example, “failing to calculate (or
improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory,
failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous
facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence—including an explanation for
any deviation from the Guidelines range.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
                                             4
consider Thomas’s rehabilitation, ultimately finding that it was outweighed by the

aggravating factors in the case. And the Court explained why the original punishment fit

the crimes—with or without § 924(c)(1)—justifying both the new variance and the new

terms. Regardless, given Thomas’s failure to raise these (or other procedural) objections

at resentencing, we would review only for plain error, and Thomas has not met that high

standard. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734–36 (1993) (requiring a

defendant to show, among other things, that the error was prejudicial and that failure to

correct it would affect “the fairness, integrity[,] or public reputation of judicial

proceedings” (quoting United States v. Atkinson, 297 U.S. 157, 160 (1936)).

              2.      Substantive Reasonableness

       A sentence is substantively reasonable “unless no reasonable sentencing court

would have imposed the same sentence on that particular defendant for the reasons the

district court provided.” United States v. Tomko, 562 F.3d 558, 568 (3d Cir. 2009) (en

banc). Given the severity of Thomas’s crimes, the lasting psychological harm to the

victims, and the other factors considered by the District Court, we cannot say that this

high bar is met. A reasonable court, under the totality of the circumstances, could have

viewed Thomas’s original sentence as appropriate and decided to reimpose it, so the fact

that Thomas received the same sentence with one fewer count, or that the District Court

failed to give rehabilitation more weight, does not render the sentence unreasonable per

se. See id. at 567; United States v. Bungar, 478 F.3d 540, 545–46 (3d Cir. 2007).

       Guided by counsel’s Anders brief, and independently finding no abuse of the

District Court’s sentencing discretion, we will affirm.

                                               5
III.   CONCLUSION

       For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court. In

view of this disposition, counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. 4

4
  In accordance with 3d Cir. L.A.R. 109.2(b), we state that the issues presented here lack
legal merit, and so Thomas’s counsel is not required to file a petition for writ of certiorari
with the Supreme Court.
                                              6