United States of America v. Antuan Dicks

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 05-5111
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
ANTUAN DICKS,
Appellant
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Crim. No. 97-00022-2)
Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, District Judge
Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
March 7, 2008
BEFORE: FISHER, GREENBERG, and ROTH, Circuit Judges
(Filed: April 2, 2008)
GREENBERG, Circuit Judge.
This matter comes on before this Court on an appeal by Antuan Dicks from an
order entered on November 10, 2005, revoking a term of supervised release previously
imposed on him and sentencing him to a 60-month custodial term to be served
consecutively to a term of life imprisonment that he was serving on offenses distinct from

-- 1 of 5 --

2
those involved in this case. Dicks originally pleaded guilty on June 9, 1997, to an
indictment charging him with conspiracy to distribute cocaine and related offenses. At
the sentencing hearing on February 5, 1998, the District Court, after granting the
government’s motion to depart downward from the Sentencing Guidelines range pursuant
to U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1, sentenced Dicks to a 72-month custodial term to be followed by a
three-year term of supervised release. It also levied a special assessment of $1,250
against Dicks.
On December 4, 2001, the District Court modified the terms of the supervised
release so as to require Dicks to pay $100 monthly installments on his special assessment.
On January 8, 2003, while Dicks was on supervised release, the Philadelphia Police
Department arrested him and charged him with possession of a controlled substance with
intent to distribute and firearm offenses. Subsequently, a grand jury in the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania indicted Dicks and certain other people for conspiracy to
distribute cocaine and crack cocaine and related offenses. At the ensuing trial, a jury
convicted Dicks of two counts of possession with intent to distribute more than 500 grams
of cocaine and three counts of possession with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of
crack cocaine. The District Court in that case on July 26, 2005, sentenced Dicks to life
imprisonment to be followed by ten years of supervised release and we have affirmed the
judgment of conviction and sentence in that case. See United States v. Dicks, No. 05-
3620, 2008 WL 397298 (3d Cir. Feb. 14, 2008).

-- 2 of 5 --

3
As might be expected Dicks’s January 8, 2003 arrest triggered proceedings leading
to charges against him for violating the terms of his supervised release. These
proceedings culminated on November 9, 2005, when the District Court held a hearing on
the charges at which Dicks conceded his violations. The District Court found that
Dicks’s drug distribution convictions constituted grade A violations of the general
condition of his supervised release that he not commit any state, federal, or local crimes.
The court also found that Dicks failed to make three of his required $100 monthly
payments towards his $1,250 special assessment, an omission which constituted a grade C
violation.
As a consequence of its findings the District Court revoked Dicks’s term of
supervised release and sentenced him to a 60-month custodial term to run consecutively
to the life sentence imposed on July 26, 2005. The court entered its order on November
10, 2005, and Dicks has appealed from that order.
On November 23, 2005, we appointed William R. Spade, Esq., of Philadelphia, as
Criminal Justice Act counsel for Dicks on this appeal. On May 1, 2007, Spade filed a
motion pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), for
permission to withdraw as counsel for Dicks and he also filed a brief in accordance with
Anders. Spade indicated in his brief that he “has conscientiously reviewed the record in
this case [and] has come to the conclusion that there are no issues of arguable merit to be
raised on the appeal.” Appellant’s br. at 5. Similarly, in his motion he indicated that

-- 3 of 5 --

4
“after conducting a conscientious review of the record, counsel for appellant filed a brief
pursuant to Anders . . . in which he concluded that there are no issues of arguable merit to
be raised on appeal.” In both his brief and his motion Spade points out that he reached
his conclusion after communicating with Dicks. A certificate of service accompanying
both the brief and the motion show that Spade served them on Dicks.
On May 15, 2007, the clerk of our court addressed a letter to Dicks advising him
that he had 30 days from the date of that letter “in which to raise any points that you
choose which explain why your conviction and/or sentence should be overturned.” Even
though the letter pointed out that Dicks could raise his points in a formal or informal brief
he has not filed any brief. The government has filed a brief agreeing with Spade that any
claim Dicks could make on this appeal “would lack any basis in law or fact” and urging
that we should grant Spade’s “request to withdraw, and affirm the judgment on the
merits.” Appellee’s br. at 10.
In McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 108 S.Ct. 1895 (1988), the Court
made it clear that an attorney seeking to withdraw pursuant to Anders “has provided the
client with a diligent and thorough search of the record for any arguable claim”, id. at
442, 108 S.Ct. 1904, before concluding “that the appeal lacks any basis in law or fact.”
Id. at 438 n.10, 108 S.Ct. at 1902 n.10. Spade’s brief shows that he did exactly that and
has concluded that “the only claim that could be raised in this case is that the District
Court did not consider all of the sentencing goals under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and that the

-- 4 of 5 --

5
sentence is unreasonable.” Appellant’s br. at 6. We have made a similar search of the
record and have come to the same conclusion and, in particular, have concluded that a
challenge to the sentence on the basis that it is unreasonable would be completely without
any merit. See Gall v. United States, 128 S.Ct. 586 (2007).
For the foregoing reasons we will grant Spade’s motion to withdraw and will
affirm the order of November 10, 2005, revoking Dicks’s term of supervised release and
sentencing him to a 60-month custodial term to be served consecutively to his term of life
imprisonment.

-- 5 of 5 --