Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
United States v. Giles
Citation: 356 F. App'x 567Docket: No. 08-4621
Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; December 14, 2009; Federal Appellate Court
Malverse Giles pled guilty to distribution and possession with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base, as outlined in a written plea agreement. His counsel filed an Anders brief, indicating that there were no issues of arguable merit for appeal, while Giles also submitted a pro se brief. The court reviewed both briefs and the district court record, particularly focusing on whether Giles’ guilty plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily, and whether he waived his right to indictment appropriately. Giles did not contest the guilty plea or the conviction but challenged the sentence. His offense carried a base offense level of 38, with an additional two levels for firearm possession, leading to a recommended Sentencing Guideline Range of 360 months to life due to his classification as a career offender. However, the District Court agreed that his criminal history was overstated, reducing it from category VI to V and rejecting the career offender designation. The court granted a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. At sentencing, Giles received a term of 235 months, which was the lowest end of the recalculated Guideline range of 235 to 293 months. He argued that his co-conspirators received shorter sentences; however, their criminal histories were significantly less severe than his. The District Court justified its sentence by considering the differences in criminal history, stating that nothing in § 3553 prohibits taking such differences into account. Giles’ pro se brief primarily addressed claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, which cannot be raised on direct appeal but must be pursued through collateral attacks. Finding no abuse of discretion or error by the District Court, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence, granting counsel’s motion to withdraw.