United States of America v. Malcolm Hussain Toran, a/k/a HOTS MALCOLM TORAN

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 00-3786
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
MALCOLM HUSSAIN TORAN,
a/k/a HOTS
MALCOLM TORAN,
Appellant
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
(Dist. Court No. 99-cr-00007-4E)
District Court Judge: Maurice B. Cohill, Jr.
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
September 20, 2002
Before: SCIRICA, ALITO, and MCKEE, Circuit Judges.
(Opinion Filed: October 18, 2002 )
OPINION OF THE COURT

-- 1 of 7 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Because we write for the parties only, the background of the case need not be set
out.
Appellant Malcolm Hussain Toran (“Appellant”) appeals his conviction for
conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute an amount of cocaine base in excess of
50 grams in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. For the reasons stated below, we affirm
Appellant’s conviction.
I.
Where a federal criminal defendant enters a guilty plea as to a given charge, a court
may only overturn the defendant’s conviction on the ground that the defendant’s plea was
not “voluntary and intelligent” in nature. Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973).
Although Tollett involved a petition for federal habeas corpus, this Court has confirmed
that the restrictions described in Tollett on challenges to a district court’s rulings on pre-
trial motions where a defendant has pled guilty are also applicable where the defendant
brings such challenges on direct appeal from his conviction. In United States v. Huff, 873
F.2d 709 (3d Cir. 1989), the defendant was arrested for bank robbery and related offenses
and made inculpatory statements to the police in the course of his interrogation. Defendant
filed pre-trial motions requesting that the statements be suppressed because they were
involuntarily taken in violation of his constitutional rights. The District Court denied these
motions. Subsequently, defendant elected to plead guilty to certain charges in exchange for

-- 2 of 7 --

3
the government’s agreement to dismiss the remaining counts and not to oppose defendant’s
request to concurrently serve the sentences imposed for the counts to which he pled guilty.
At sentencing, defendant moved to withdraw his plea and go to trial, again raising the
argument that his statements to the police were not voluntarily given. The District Court
denied defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea. Defendant then appealed, arguing that the
district court erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress his statements to the police.
The Court declined to reach this question, reasoning that “[i]f [defendant] wanted to
preserve his right to challenge the validity of his statements on appeal, he should have
refused to plead guilty unless his plea was conditional under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(a)(2).”
Id. at 712. Since defendant conceded that his guilty plea was unconditional in nature, he
could not appeal the District Court’s denial of his suppression motions, and could only
attack his conviction on the ground that he did not voluntarily and intelligently enter his
guilty plea.
In the instant case, Appellant does not dispute that his guilty plea, like that of the
defendant in Huff, was unconditional in nature; Appellant did not reserve the right to
appeal the District Court’s determinations regarding his motion to suppress his statements
to Agent Van Slyke and Detective Nolan. Nor does Appellant deny that this Court’s
holding in Huff prevents him from challenging the District Court’s denial of his motion on
appeal. Appellant instead contends that this Court should “modif[y] or exten[d]” the
doctrine set out in Huff “due to the constitutional nature of [Appellant’s] claim (the Fifth

-- 3 of 7 --

4
Amendment right not to incriminate himself and his Sixth Amendment right to counsel,)
the government’s conduct, and the length of his incarceration.” Brief for Appellant at 13.
As noted above, this Court has previously acknowledged that the holding of Tollett
applies to direct appeals by defendants who have entered guilty pleas. The Supreme
Court’s language in Tollett did not admit of exceptions where facts such as those in the
instant case are present. Indeed, Tollett itself involved a highly similar factual situation.
The appellant in Tollett argued that despite his plea of guilty to a charge of first-degree
murder and subsequent sentence of 99 years’ imprisonment, he should be able to attack his
conviction because racial discrimination was unconstitutionally employed in selecting the
members of the grand jury that indicted him. Thus, appellant in Tollett also sought to raise
constitutional attacks on his conviction, cited egregious governmental conduct to support
his position, and had received a severe sentence for his crimes, but the Supreme Court
denied appellant the ability to overturn his guilty plea. Given this case’s similarity to
Tollett, crafting an exception to the prohibition on challenging pre-trial rulings where the
defendant has pled guilty on these facts would disregard the mandate of Supreme Court
precedent. Hence, we decline to entertain Appellant’s challenges to the District Court’s
denial of his suppression motion.
The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

-- 4 of 7 --

5
TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT:
Kindly file the foregoing Not Precedential Opinion.
Circuit Judge

-- 5 of 7 --

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 00-3786
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
MALCOLM HUSSAIN TORAN,
a/k/a HOTS
MALCOLM TORAN,
Appellant
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
(Dist. Court No. 99-cr-00007-4E)
District Court Judge: Maurice B. Cohill, Jr.
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
September 20, 2002
Before: SCIRICA, ALITO, and MCKEE, Circuit Judges.
(Opinion Filed: )
JUDGMENT
This cause came to be heard on the record from the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania and was submitted under Third Circuit LAR

-- 6 of 7 --

34.1(a) on September 20, 2002.
After review and consideration of all contentions raised by the Appellants, it
is hereby ordered and adjudged that the judgment of the District Court entered on October
25, 2000 be and is hereby affirmed, all in accordance with the opinion of this court.
ATTEST:
Clerk
DATED:

-- 7 of 7 --