United States v. Boruch Rapoport

633 F. App'x 264
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 11, 2016
Docket15-50526
StatusUnpublished

This text of 633 F. App'x 264 (United States v. Boruch Rapoport) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Boruch Rapoport, 633 F. App'x 264 (5th Cir. 2016).

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Borueh Yechiel Rapoport pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. In that agreement, Rapoport waived the right to appeal his sentence, with some exceptions, including if his constitutional rights were violated by, inter alia, ineffective assistance of counsel.

Rapoport was sentenced to a within-advisory-Guidelines term of 16 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Rapoport acknowledges the appeal waiver but maintains the issues presented fall within the ineffective-assistance exception. In that regard, he contends his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance at sentencing by failing to object to: his not receiving a minor-role adjustment, pursuant to Guideline § 3B1.2; and, the procedural and substantive unreasonableness of his sentence.

Generally, “claims of ineffective assistance of counsel should not be litigated on direct appeal, unless they were previously presented to the trial court”. United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 123, 190 L.Ed.2d 94 (2014). For ineffective-assistance claims not presented in district court, “[i]t is only in rare cases in which the record allows a reviewing court to fairly evaluate the merits of the claim that we will consider such a claim”. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Kizzee, 150 F.3d 497, 502-03 (5th Cir.1998) (record insufficient for review where district court did not hear testimony or make factual findings as to ineffective-assistance claims).

Although Rapoport’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims fall within an exception to his appeal waiver, the record is not sufficiently developed to afford them fair consideration due to his failure to raise them in district court. See Isgar, 739 F.3d at 841. Accordingly, we decline to consider his claims on direct appeal; Rapoport may raise them on collateral review under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 508-09, 123 S.Ct. 1690, 155 L.Ed.2d 714 (2003).

AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Kizzee
150 F.3d 497 (Fifth Circuit, 1998)
Massaro v. United States
538 U.S. 500 (Supreme Court, 2003)
United States v. Gilbert Isgar
739 F.3d 829 (Fifth Circuit, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
633 F. App'x 264, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-boruch-rapoport-ca5-2016.