United States v. McLaughlin

Citation: 82 F. App'x 741Docket: No. 02-3696

Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; November 6, 2003; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

George McLaughlin appeals his conviction and sentence resulting from a superseding indictment that charged him with multiple offenses, including conspiracy to commit armed bank robbery and firearm-related charges. He pleaded guilty to several counts on April 6, 1999, and agreed to cooperate with the government, which led to a motion for downward departure due to substantial assistance. The presentence report set his offense level at 28, with a criminal history category of III, resulting in a guideline range of 97 to 121 months. After a government motion and agreement among the parties, the offense level was reduced to 27, leading to a revised sentencing range of 87 to 108 months. Ultimately, on September 17, 2002, McLaughlin received concurrent sentences of 60 months for several counts, with additional consecutive sentences totaling 216 months, five years of supervised release, restitution of $1,500, and a $600 special assessment. Following the sentencing, McLaughlin filed a notice of appeal. His appointed counsel submitted a brief under Anders v. California, stating that no non-frivolous issues for appeal could be identified, and requested permission to withdraw, as required by the legal standards set forth for such circumstances.

Defense counsel's Anders brief identifies potential non-frivolous issues concerning McLaughlin's case, including: 1) the voluntariness of his guilty plea; 2) the legality of the imposed sentence; 3) the evidentiary support for two violations under 18 U.S.C. 924(e); and 4) McLaughlin's claim for a maximum five-year sentence. Counsel concluded these claims were frivolous, a conclusion the court supports.

McLaughlin, granted time to file a pro se brief, raised issues including: 1) sufficiency of evidence for aiding and abetting an attempted bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. 2113(d); 2) sufficiency of evidence for aiding and abetting the carrying of a firearm during a violent crime under 18 U.S.C. 924(c); 3) entitlement to a maximum five-year sentence; and 4) improper enhancement of his sentence based on a prior conviction of less than one year.

Regarding the sufficiency of evidence for the bank robbery charge, McLaughlin argued that since the robbery was not completed, he could not be convicted of aiding and abetting. However, by pleading guilty, he waived this challenge as a guilty plea admits all elements of the charge, and such a claim cannot be raised on direct appeal. McLaughlin could potentially pursue a challenge under 28 U.S.C. 2255 regarding the voluntariness of his plea, but this has not been initiated. The court found sufficient evidence supporting the conviction, noting the attempted robbery at United Savings Bank in Philadelphia on September 9, 1996, where McLaughlin acted as a lookout while co-conspirators approached the bank. His argument regarding withdrawal from the conspiracy is deemed meritless, as aiding and abetting requires knowledge of and intent to facilitate the crime, which was present even though the robbery did not occur.

McLaughlin was convicted for aiding and abetting an armed bank robbery, demonstrating intent and taking substantial steps towards this crime, which included planning the robbery and serving as the switch car driver. His admissions during the plea colloquy established sufficient evidence for these convictions, as supported by precedents like *United States v. Cicco* and *United States v. Gordon*. Additionally, McLaughlin's argument regarding insufficient evidence for aiding and abetting the carrying of a firearm during a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) was dismissed, as it was precluded by his guilty plea and was ultimately meritless based on his involvement in the conspiracy and robbery planning.

McLaughlin also contended he was entitled to a maximum five-year sentence based on a promise from an FBI agent. However, his claim contradicted his own statements during the guilty plea, where he acknowledged no such promises were made. Regarding sentencing, he challenged the calculation of his criminal history points related to a prior conviction. Although the government acknowledged a potential error in assessing three points for a short sentence, any correction would not alter his criminal history category, which remained III. Thus, the total points would still qualify him for the same sentencing guidelines. Ultimately, the court affirmed McLaughlin's conviction and sentence based on these findings.