United States v. Parchment ( 2003 )

Opinions of the United
2003 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
3-14-2003
USA v. Parchment
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket 02-1368
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Parchment" (2003). 2003 Decisions. Paper 742.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003/742
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2003 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 02-1368
____________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
CECIL V. OWEN PARCHMENT,
a/k/a OWEN, a/k/a BUBA,
Cecil Owen Parchment, Appellant
_________________
ON APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
(District Court No. 01-CR-00233-01)
District Court Judge: Harvey Bartle, III
__________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
February 13, 2003
Before: ALITO and McKEE, Circuit Judges, and Schwarzer,* Senior District
Judge
(Opinion Filed: March 13, 2003)
*
Honorable William W Schwarzer, Senior District Judge, Northern District of
California, sitting by designation.
_______________________
OPINION OF THE COURT
_______________________
PER CURIAM:
Pursuant to a plea agreement, Cecil V. Owen Parchment pled guilty to
several counts of a Superceding Indictment charging him with conspiracy to
distribute more than fifty grams of cocaine base, distribution of cocaine base in
excess of five grams within 1000 feet of a school, distribution of marijuana in
excess of fifty grams, and related charges. His plea was accepted and he was
thereafter sentenced to 120 months’ imprisonment, supervised release of five years,
and a special assessment of $800. This appeal followed.
Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967) wherein counsel states, “after a conscientious examination of the
record, [he] can find no non-frivolous issues for appeal.” Appellant’s Br. at 19.
Parchment filed an informal brief in response, asserting that his plea was involuntary
and he received ineffective assistance of counsel. He argues that his counsel
represented to him that he would receive a maximum of seven years’ imprisonment,
and that the government had promised not to make a sentencing recommendation,
but did so, thereby breaching the plea agreement. These claims are frivolous.
2
First, during the plea colloquy, the district court confirmed that
Parchment had read the plea agreement, understood it, and signed it. Parchment
agreed under oath that no one “made any threat or promise or assurance to [him] of
any kind other than what is contained in the plea agreement to convince or induce
[him] to sign it.” He was advised that he would be subject to the maximum
sentence of life in prison and the applicable mandatory minimum of twenty years.
Further, the plea agreement states that the court may impose the specified maximum
and mandatory minimum sentence. We thus conclude that Parchment’s plea was
knowing and voluntary. See U.S. v. Mustafa, 238 F.3d 485, 492 (3d Cir. 2001).
Second, the plea agreement that Parchment signed specifically
reserved the government’s right to make any sentencing recommendations. Due to
prior drug offenses, Parchment had faced a mandatory minimum sentence of
twenty years’ imprisonment and ten years’ supervised release. Based on two prior
felony drug convictions, the government had the option to seek an enhanced
mandatory sentence of life imprisonment. At sentencing, the government declined
to seek this enhancement, but requested that the court not sentence appellant below
the ten-year mandatory minimum sentence that would have applied had appellant
had no prior drug convictions. The government’s sentencing recommendations
thus inured to Parchment’s benefit.
3
We agree with counsel’s representations that there are no nonfrivolous
issues before us, and will therefore affirm the judgment of the district court.
4