United States v. Minor Perez-Chach

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-6951

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MINOR PEREZ-CHACH, a/k/a Minor Chach-Perez, a/k/a Little Bad, a/k/a Bryant Sacarias,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah L. Boardman, District Judge. (8:13-cr-00496-DLB-8)

Submitted: July 23, 2026 Decided: July 31, 2026

Before KING, Circuit Judge, and KEENAN and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Minor Perez-Chach, Appellant Pro Se. David Christian Bornstein, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM:

Minor Perez-Chach appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to compel his former trial counsel to produce Perez-Chach’s case file so that Perez-Chach may pursue 28 U.S.C. § 2255 relief. We review the denial of a motion to compel under an abuse-of- discretion standard. See Horne v. WTVR, LLC, 893 F.3d 201, 212 (4th Cir. 2018). Under the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct 19-301.16(d) (2025), “[u]pon termination of representation, an attorney shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client’s interests, such as . . . surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled.” See also United States v. Basham, 789 F.3d 358, 388 (4th Cir. 2015) (reviewing legal authority requiring counsel to deliver client’s file upon termination of representation). Thus, because Perez-Chach’s former trial counsel should return the case file to Perez- Chach to the extent required by Rule 19-301.16(d), we conclude that the court abused its discretion in holding that it did not have the authority to grant Perez-Chach’s motion to compel.

Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order denying Perez-Chach’s motion to compel, United States v. Perez-Chach, No. 8:13-cr-00496-DLB-8 (D. Md. Oct. 10, 2025), and remand with instructions for the district court to consider Perez-Chach’s motion and to order Perez-Chach’s former trial counsel to respond if necessary for the resolution of the motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED