United States v. Felix , 314 F. App'x 430 ( 2008 )

Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
9-9-2008
USA v. Felix
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-1988
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Felix" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 559.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/559
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 2008 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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 05-1988
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
JULIO FELIX,
Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(Crim. No. 04-cr-00304)
District Judge: Hon. William J. Martini
Before: McKEE and ROTH, Circuit Judges, and
O’NEIL,* District Judge
Submitted pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
May 12, 2008
(Opinion filed: September 9, 2008)
OPINION
McKEE, Circuit Judge.
Julio Felix appeals the district court’s judgment of conviction and sentence.
Felix’s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and submitted a brief pursuant
*
The Honorable Thomas N. O’Neil, Senior District Judge, United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
1
to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that Felix’s appeal raises no
nonfrivolous issues. Felix has also filed a pro se brief. For the reasons that follow, we
will affirm.
I.
Because we write primarily for the parties, we note only the facts and procedural
history that are helpful to our brief discussion.
Under Anders, if, after review of the record and a conscientious investigation,
counsel is convinced that the appeal presents no issue of arguable merit, he/she may file a
brief referring to anything in the record that could conceivably support an appeal, and
then ask leave to withdraw. 386 U.S. at 741-42. To satisfy the Anders requirement,
counsel must “satisfy the court that he or she has thoroughly scoured the record in search
of appealable issues” and then “explain why the issues are frivolous.” United States v.
Marvin, 211 F.3d 778, 780 (3d Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). We have stated that:
The Court’s inquiry when counsel submits an Anders brief is thus twofold:
(1) whether counsel adequately fulfilled [Third Circuit LAR 109.2's]
requirements; and (2) whether an independent review of the record presents
any nonfrivolous issues.
United States v. Youla, 241 F.3d 296, 300 (3d Cir. 2001). We exercise plenary review in
determining whether an appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80
(1988).
II.
In his Anders brief, counsel considered: (1) the district court’s denial of the motion
2
to produce grand jury testimony; (2) the district court’s denial of the motion to produce
Brady material; (3) the district court’s denial of the motion for information relating to
Felix’s identification; (4) the district court’s denial of the motion to identify cooperating
witnesses or provide their photographs; (5) the district court’s denial of the suppression
motion; (6) the district court’s denial of the motion for production of statements; (7) the
district court’s reservation of a decision on Felix’s suppression motion; and (8) the district
court’s denial of the motion challenging the admissibility of prior convictions. Counsel
concluded that none of these rulings raised meritorious issues for appeal. We agree.
Counsel also considered possible sentencing issues. Felix had a Total Offense
Level 32 and a Criminal History Category I, yielding a Guideline range of 121 to 151
months. However, a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years applied. 21 U.S.C. §
841(a)(1)(A). The government argued for a sentence toward the upper Guideline range.
However, the district court, considered that Felix was a first time offender at age 49 and
rejected the government’s request because it was excessive. The court also expressed the
view that the 10 year mandatory minimum was excessive as applied to Felix. However,
the court had no authority to impose anything less, and therefore sentenced Felix to a
period of incarceration of 120 months. That was one month less than the advisory
Guideline range. See, United States v. Rita, U.S. , 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2465 (2007).
Felix has requested that counsel raise an ineffective assistance of counsel claim as
to both his original lawyer and his appointed trial counsel. However, current counsel
3
correctly notes that such claims are not appropriate for a direct appeal. Rather, they must
be raised in a collateral habeas proceeding. See United States v. Jake, 281 F.3d 123, 132
n.7 (3d Cir. 2002) (“[W]e have stated repeatedly that Sixth Amendment claims of
ineffective assistance of counsel should ordinarily be raised in a collateral proceeding
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 rather than on direct appeal.”) (citing cases).
III.
As noted, Felix has filed his own pro se brief raising five issues. First, Felix
contends that the government, in its opening and summation, improperly vouched for the
credibility of Hugo Agudelo, a key cooperating witness. Felix claims that in summation
and again in rebuttal, the government argued that the jury should not believe Agudelo’s
testimony because telling the truth was in his self-interest under his plea agreement. In its
rebuttal summation, the government contended that phone records were “hard to cross
[examine],” thereby corroborating Agudelo. Supp. App. 65. Felix never objected to these
comments. Therefore, he has to demonstrate plain error. United States v. Richards, 241
F.3d 335, 341-42 (3d Cir. 2001).
A prosecutor’s comments constitute improper vouching only if “the prosecutor . . .
assure[s] the jury that the testimony of a Government witness is credible[,]” and “[if] this
assurance [is] based on either the prosecutor’s personal knowledge or other information
not contained in the record.” United States v. Harris, 471 F.3d 507, 512 (3d Cir. 2006).
Here, the government did neither. Rather, the prosecutor used an appropriate argument to
4
suggest that Agudelo was telling the truth. United States v. Lore, 430 F.3d 190, 212 (3d
Cir. 2005) (rejecting claim that argument constituted improper vouching where
“throughout the comments . . . the prosecutor referenced the corroborating evidence of
record.”). It was also proper for the government to argue that a cooperating witness’s
plea agreement provides an incentive for truthful testimony, so long as the cooperating
witness has so testified or the record otherwise supports the argument. United States v.
Saada, 212 F.3d 210, 225 (3d Cir. 2000) (“Because the prosecutor’s comments as to why
[the cooperators] had an incentive to tell the truth were based on th[e] evidence, they
constituted proper argument and not improper vouching.”). Thus, Felix’s first claim is
frivolous.
Second, Felix contends that the district court abused its discretion when it refused
to permit him to again raise his motion to suppress when his new counsel was appointed.
Felix claims that “[a]t this November 17, 2004 hearing it was adduced that Felix’s newly
appointed attorney . . . and the court were unaware of any Motion To Suppress that had
been filed on Felix’s behalf.” Pro Se Br. at 8.
However, Felix misrepresents the record. His defense counsel stated that he
“kn[e]w there were pretrial motions,” but that he had previously been informed that the
motions relied on the premise that Felix had given oral consent to search his apartment
but had not consented in writing. In addition, the government said that a suppression
motion had been made, but because the motion was only “one conclusory statement,” the
5
district court reserved a decision and gave Felix an opportunity to submit an affidavit and
evidence to support his claim that his consent had been invalid. The government also
noted that when new counsel was appointed, “it’s on the record that he was notified of
that [motion] and given time[,]” but the additional submissions were “never made.” The
district court also noted that Felix “had ample opportunity through both counsel to
challenge any consent that is alleged to have been given to search his apartment.” See,
e.g., United States v. Richardson, 764 F.2d 1514, 1517 (8th Cir. 1985). Therefore,
Felix’s second argument has no merit.
Third, Felix alleges that audiotapes of intercepted and monitored conversations
were not timely sealed and were tampered with, and, therefore, should have been
suppressed. However, Felix never moved to suppress the tapes on either of these
grounds. He did request a hearing on their admissibility based on their audibility, but
withdrew that motion after the government produced affidavits and transcripts in
discovery. Thus, his argument is waived. In addition, he cannot demonstrate error, plain
or otherwise, because he provides nothing to support his allegations that the tapes were
improperly sealed or tampered with.
Fourth, Felix contends that his trial attorney was ineffective for failing to
investigate and request the government’s witnesses medical records prior to trial and for
failing to investigate any of his pre-trial motions. This contention is contrary to his
confirmation that he was satisfied with his counsel before the trial began. Moreover, as
6
noted above, we can not consider it here.
Fifth, and finally, Felix contends that the district court abused its discretion in
denying his request for a continuance and thereby denied his newly-appointed counsel
adequate opportunity to prepare for trial. On the first day of trial, Felix expressed
concerns about his newly appointed attorney. The district court made an appropriate
inquiry, and discussed the matter with defense counsel and Felix. Felix then confirmed
that he was satisfied with his new lawyer and his preparation. Accordingly, the request
for a one-month continuance was denied, but the court adjourned the trial until the next
day so Felix and his attorney could use the intervening time to meet and further prepare
for trial.
Given the circumstances here, the district court’s decision to deny a
one-month continuance was not an abuse of discretion. See Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1,
11-13 (1983).
V.
For all of the above reasons, we will affirm the judgment of conviction and
sentence. We will also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
7