United States v. Self
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 10842
| 3rd Cir. | 2012Background
- Haziz Self was convicted on two counts of distributing crack cocaine and sentenced to 120 months’ imprisonment.
- The CI recorded drug purchases arranged through Haziz’s brother Rahmmar; approximately 12 grams sold for $500.
- Haziz’s trial involved drug-quantity and witness testimony, including a niece’s remarks about Haziz being in jail.
- Greenberg initially represented Haziz; the same firm also represented Rahmmar, creating potential conflict-of-interest concerns.
- The district court disqualified Greenberg, appointed new counsel, and the jury found Haziz guilty on both counts; sentencing followed with a 120-month term.
- The Third Circuit later vacated Haziz’s sentence and remanded for resentencing in light of the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA) as applied by Dixon.]
- The case concerns whether pre-FSA thresholds and related guidelines calculations affected the properly required sentence and whether the FSA applies to Haziz’s case on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disqualification of counsel and Sixth Amendment infringement | Haziz’s chosen counsel was improperly disqualified | Disqualification was appropriate for conflict risk | No abuse of discretion; serious potential for conflict merited disqualification |
| Mistrial denial due to niece’s improper remarks | Mistrial warranted due to prejudicial statements | No reversible error; cautionary instruction mitigated prejudice | Not an abuse of discretion; no grounds for mistrial |
| Post-trial interview of alternate juror | Alternate juror interview justified to uncover bias | Post-verdict juror interviews are disfavored | No abuse of discretion; court properly denied interview |
| Mitigating role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 | Defendant should receive mitigating role reduction | Haziz was not substantially less culpable | Deference given to district court; no clear error in denying adjustment |
| FSA applicability to Haziz’s sentence following Dixon | FSA should apply to Haziz’s post-enactment resentencing | FSA not applicable to pre-enactment convictions | FSA applies per Dixon; remand for de novo resentencing warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153 (1988) (conflict of interest and joint defense in criminal cases; potential for conflict may justify disqualification)
- United States v. Voigt, 89 F.3d 1050 (3d Cir. 1996) (court may override counsel-of-choice rights for judicial administration concerns)
- United States v. Flanagan, 679 F.2d 1072 (3d Cir. 1982) (disqualification of firm representing multiple co-defendants)
- United States v. Gilsenan, 949 F.2d 90 (3d Cir. 1991) (post-trial juror interviews and inquiry standards)
- United States v. Dixon, 648 F.3d 195 (3d Cir. 2011) (FSA applies to post-enactment resentencing (Dixon rule))
- Headley, 923 F.2d 1079 (3d Cir. 1991) (mitigating role considerations in § 3B1.2 analyses)
- Isaza-Zapata, 148 F.3d 236 (3d Cir. 1998) (weight and quantity assessment guidance in guideline calculations)