United States v. Harold Schrader
663 F. App'x 146
| 3rd Cir. | 2016Background
- Harold Schrader pleaded guilty (via superseding information) to wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343) and possession of child pornography (18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B)) after waiving a grand-jury indictment.
- Conduct: between 2008–2011 Schrader solicited and obtained > $200,000 by deceiving online victims into wiring funds to fictitious causes. Child pornography was discovered on his computer during the investigation of the financial crimes.
- At the Rule 11 colloquy Schrader acknowledged the charges, maximum penalties, and that his pleas were voluntary; the district court accepted the guilty pleas.
- Presentence Report calculated a Guidelines range of 97–121 months (total offense level 30, CH I); Schrader sought downward departure/variance to probation or home confinement based on age (69) and serious health conditions.
- The district court denied departures but granted a 37‑month variance, sentencing Schrader to 60 months’ imprisonment + 5 years supervised release, $232,500 restitution, and a $200 special assessment.
- Defense counsel moved to withdraw under Anders; the Third Circuit reviewed the Anders brief and the record and affirmed the judgment, granting counsel leave to withdraw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction of the district court | Schrader argued jurisdiction could be contested | Government argued district court had statutory jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231 | Court held district court properly exercised jurisdiction; jurisdictional challenge frivolous |
| Validity of guilty pleas (Rule 11 / voluntariness) | Schrader could argue plea was invalid or involuntary | Government argued plea colloquy complied with Rule 11 and pleas were knowing and voluntary | Court held the Rule 11 colloquy was adequate; pleas knowing and voluntary; appeal frivolous |
| Legality and reasonableness of sentence (procedural & substantive) | Schrader argued for departure/variance due to age and health; sought probation/home confinement | Government argued Guidelines were calculated correctly and the sentence was reasonable; district court adequately considered § 3553(a) factors | Court held the Guidelines calculation and procedural steps were correct; district court reasonably exercised discretion in imposing a 60‑month sentence (37‑month variance); sentencing challenge frivolous |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedural framework for counsel’s withdrawal on frivolous appeals)
- Simon v. Gov’t of V.I., 679 F.3d 109 (3d Cir. 2012) (standards for Anders withdrawal and appellate review)
- Youla, 241 F.3d 296 (3d Cir. 2001) (Anders compliance and scope of counsel’s duty to examine record)
- Broce, 488 U.S. 563 (1989) (plea-waiver principles)
- Schweitzer, 454 F.3d 197 (3d Cir. 2006) (Rule 11 plea colloquy embodies constitutional requirement of knowing and voluntary plea)
- Gunter, 462 F.3d 237 (3d Cir. 2006) (three-step sentencing procedure under the Guidelines)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard of review and reasonableness analysis for sentencing)
- Coleman, 575 F.3d 316 (3d Cir. 2009) (affirmance without appointment of new counsel when appeal is patently frivolous)