United States v. Charles Swan
661 F. App'x 767
| 3rd Cir. | 2016Background
- On July 12, 2012, York City police stopped Charles Swan for expired registration; Swan fled and threw a pistol; police recovered it and Swan later admitted ownership.
- Swan, a felon, pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g); the plea form warned that ACCA qualification would trigger a 15-year mandatory minimum.
- Swan had prior Pennsylvania convictions for possession with intent to deliver cocaine: three counts on July 19, 1999; one on July 23, 1999; and another in 2006.
- At sentencing the district court found Swan an armed career criminal under the ACCA (§ 924(e)) and imposed the 15-year mandatory minimum (180 months).
- Swan appealed his sentence; appellate counsel moved to withdraw under Anders v. California, and Swan filed a pro se brief arguing his 1999 convictions should not count as separate ACCA predicates.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of Anders brief | Counsel failed to identify arguable issues (raised by Swan) | Counsel filed Anders motion claiming no nonfrivolous issues | Anders brief was inadequate on its face but withdrawal still allowed after independent review |
| ACCA predicate: separate occasions | Swan: 1999 convictions arose from a single course of conduct and should be one offense | Government: July 23 conviction is a separate episode from July 19 counts | Court held the July 23 conviction is a separate ACCA predicate; Swan meets three-offense requirement |
| Use of U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2 to collapse predicates | Swan relied on PSR noting § 4A1.2 treated July 23 as related to July 19 | Government: § 4A1.2 governs guideline points, not ACCA application | Court rejected § 4A1.2 argument as irrelevant to ACCA analysis |
| Voluntariness of plea & sentence reasonableness | Swan (pro se) suggested issues with plea knowingness and sentencing | Government argued plea was knowing and sentence was mandatory and appropriate | Court found plea knowing and voluntary; no colorable challenge to procedural/substantive reasonableness |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (establishes counsel-withdrawal procedure when appeal is frivolous)
- United States v. Abbott, 748 F.3d 154 (3d Cir. 2014) (Pennsylvania possession with intent to distribute cocaine counts as an ACCA serious drug offense)
- United States v. Schoolcraft, 879 F.2d 64 (3d Cir. 1989) (adopts separate-episode test for ACCA predicates)
- United States v. Flores-Mejia, 759 F.3d 253 (3d Cir. 2014) (sets three-step framework for sentencing review post-Booker)
- United States v. Youla, 241 F.3d 296 (3d Cir. 2001) (requires independent appellate review after Anders brief)