United States v. Sanchez

Opinions of the United
2003 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
3-21-2003
USA v. Sanchez
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket 02-3041
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Sanchez" (2003). 2003 Decisions. Paper 730.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003/730
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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 02-3041
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
WILFREDO SANCHEZ
aka
FREDDY FOX
aka
WILFREDO SANCHEZ
Wilfredo Sanchez,
Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Criminal No. 02-cr-00095-1)
District Court Judge: Honorable Alfred M. Wolin
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
March 11, 2003
Before: RENDELL, AMBRO and MAGILL*, Circuit Judges.
(Filed March 21, 2003 )
*The Honorable Frank J. Magill, Senior Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by
designation.
____________
OPINION OF THE COURT
____________
RENDELL, Circuit Judge.
Pursuant to an agreement with the government, Wilfredo Sanchez pled guilty to a
single count of distribution and possession with intent to distribute heroin. The plea
agreement also stipulated that for sentencing purposes Sanchez had an offense level of 29
and a criminal history category of VI, resulting in a sentencing range of 151-188 months.
After determining that Sanchez’s plea was informed, voluntary, and fully consistent with the
entire plea agreement, the District Court denied Sanchez’s request for a downward
departure and sentenced him to 188 months. Sanchez now appeals. The District Court had
jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231, and we exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We will affirm.
Sanchez’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738(1967), asserting that there are no non-frivolous issues raised in this appeal and requesting
to withdraw as counsel. In reviewing an Anders brief, we inquire (1) whether counsel
adequately represented the client’s case, and (2) whether an independent review of the
record presents any non-frivolous issues. See United States v. Youla, 241 F.3d 296 (3d
Cir. 2001); United States v. Marvin, 211 F.3d 778 (3d Cir. 2000). Although counsel is not
under a duty to “raise and reject every possible claim” he or she must at a minimum meet
the level of conscientiousness set forth in Anders. Youla, 241 F.3d at 300. In Marvin we
stated that generally “we will reject briefs . . . in which counsel argue the purportedly
2
frivolous issues aggressively without explaining the faults in the arguments, as well as those
where we are not satisfied that counsel adequately attempted to uncover the best arguments
for his or her client.” Marvin, 211 F.3d at 781.
Here we are concerned that counsel has not fulfilled the requirements of
conscientiousness. There is little indication that counsel has “attempted to uncover the
best arguments” for his client, let alone that he has done so “adequately.” Id. Counsel’s
brief suggests and rejects two possible bases for appeal, but raises neither clearly. In
contrast, Sanchez’s pro se brief raises and argues a number of independent issues, only one
of which was discussed in counsel’s brief. Even if the issues lack merit, counsel is
obligated to “mention all the issues raised by his client and assure us that he has considered
them and found them patently without merit.” Marvin, 211 F.3d at 781; Youla, 241 F.3d at
301.
Given the failings in counsel’s Anders brief, we must reject counsel’s request to
withdraw unless we are convinced that the frivolousness of the issues raised in the appeal is
patent. Marvin, 211 F.3d at 781. In Youla, we held that even where counsel’s Anders brief
is inadequate, if the pro se brief provides adequate guidance concerning the issues appellant
seeks to raise on appeal, we will confine our scrutiny of the record to those issues raised in
the Anders and pro se briefs. Youla, 241 F.3d at 301. We are satisfied after our
independent scrutiny of the relevant portions of the record that the issues raised here are
without merit.
First, Sanchez’s counsel suggests the possibility that Sanchez’s plea was not
3
voluntarily made. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. There is absolutely no evidence, however, of
involuntariness; the District Court engaged in an extensive colloquy with Sanchez to ensure
that the plea was informed and voluntary.
Second, Sanchez cites 21 U.S.C. § 851(a)(1), and argues that the District Court
could not use his previous criminal convictions to enhance his sentence because the
government did not file an Information stating in writing that it intended to rely on those
convictions. Such an argument is clearly precluded by our decision in United States v. Day,
969 F.2d 39 (3d Cir. 1992), in which we held that “subsection 851(a)(1) requires the
government to file a pretrial information only if it intends to seek a sentence beyond the
maximum provided by the statute,” and that “the government is not required to file a pretrial
information to subject a defendant to sentencing as a career offender.” Id. at 48.
Third, Sanchez argues that he was denied due process because the indictment failed
to specify a particular quantity of drugs, invoking the requirements of Apprendi v. New
Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). However, as the government was not seeking, and the
District Court did not impose, a sentence above the statutory minimum, there was no
requirement that the indictment include a specific drug amount. See, e.g., United States v.
Vazquez, 271 F.3d 93, 98 (2001) (“[A]n Apprendi violation only occurs if the drug quantity
is not found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant’s sentence under § 841
exceeds 20 years.”). To the extent Sanchez also claims that his plea was unknowing
because the indictment did not specify the quantity of drugs involved, that claim is wholly
undermined by the record, which makes clear that Sanchez made a voluntary plea with full
4
knowledge of the sentencing range facing him.
Fourth, Sanchez asserts that the District Court erred in finding him to be a career
offender because his three prior felony drug convictions were “related cases” that were
consolidated for sentencing and, thus, should not have been counted as separate convictions
under the Sentencing Guidelines. Sanchez’s plea agreement, however, stipulated to the fact
that he was a career offender. Further, we note that Sanchez’s three convictions were
separated in time by intervening arrests. As the relevant guideline commentary clearly
provides that such offenses are not to be considered related, see U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2 cmt. 3;
United States v. Hallman, 23 F.3d 821, 825 (3d Cir. 1994), Sanchez’s sentencing as a
career offender was wholly proper.
Fifth, Sanchez argues that the District Court failed to articulate “in open court the
reasons for its imposition of the particular sentence” pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553. Again,
Sanchez’s claim is belied by the record, as the District Court discussed its reasons at length
during the sentencing hearing.
Sixth, Sanchez states that the indictment that was returned against him was invalid
because it was not signed by the foreperson of the grand jury. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(c).
Apparently Sanchez was in possession of an unsigned copy, but the government has since
provided a validly signed copy.
Finally, Sanchez makes three challenges to his sentence. First, Sanchez claims that
he should have been eligible for a decrease in offense level for acceptance of responsibility
and assistance to the government under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. The record is clear, however, that
5
Sanchez did in fact receive the maximum three-level decrease provided for under that
provision; the plea agreement stipulated that Sanchez’s original offense level was decreased
from 32 to 29 pursuant to § 3E1.1. Second, Sanchez claims that he should have received a
downward departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1. Notably, however, Sanchez did not raise this
claim before the District Court, and, at any rate, because there is no evidence that Sanchez
assisted in the investigation or prosecution of another individual as provided in the
Guideline, there is no evidence that Sanchez was eligible for the departure. Lastly, Sanchez
argues that he should have received a downward departure under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3 because
his classification as a career offender seriously overstated his criminal history. This claim
was put forth by Sanchez’s counsel during sentencing and rejected by the District Court,
which found that Sanchez’s criminal history category adequately reflected the seriousness
of his behavior. There is nothing in the record to suggest otherwise, and absent an error of
law we are without jurisdiction to review the discretionary downward departure decisions
of the District Courts. See United States v. Torres, 251 F.3d 138, 145 (3d Cir. 2001).
Accordingly, despite the inadequacy of the Anders brief, we will AFFIRM Sanchez’s
conviction and sentence, and GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw.
____________________
6
TO THE CLERK OF COURT:
Please file the foregoing opinion.
/s/ Marjorie O. Rendell
Circuit Judge
7