United States v. Perry ( 2023 )


Menu:
  • Case: 22-20508         Document: 00516809335             Page: 1      Date Filed: 07/05/2023
    United States Court of Appeals
    for the Fifth Circuit
    ____________
    United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    No. 22-20508
    Summary Calendar
    FILED
    July 5, 2023
    ____________
    Lyle W. Cayce
    United States of America,                                                Clerk
    Plaintiff—Appellee,
    versus
    Herbert Perry, Jr.,
    Defendant—Appellant.
    ______________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Texas
    USDC No. 4:21-CR-118-1
    ______________________________
    Before Barksdale, Higginson, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
    Per Curiam:*
    Herbert Perry, Jr., pleaded guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement
    to aiding and abetting the brandishing of a firearm during and in relation to a
    crime of violence, in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. §§ 924
    (c)(1)(A)(ii) and 2. He was
    sentenced to, inter alia, 132-months’ imprisonment and ordered, inter alia,
    to pay a $3,000 fine. He contends his trial counsel was ineffective because
    _____________________
    *
    This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
    Case: 22-20508      Document: 00516809335           Page: 2     Date Filed: 07/05/2023
    No. 22-20508
    he did not: timely file a notice of appeal (NOA); and object to the district
    court’s imposition of the fine.
    He contends he should be allowed an untimely appeal and concedes
    our court generally does not consider ineffective assistance of counsel claims
    on direct appeal, but he maintains we should consider his claim concerning
    the fine because it is not cognizable under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
    .
    Perry knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal the
    conviction and sentence, including the fine; thus, the appeal waiver is valid
    and enforceable. See United States v. McKinney, 
    406 F.3d 744
    , 746 (5th Cir.
    2005). The Government has invoked the waiver in this court. Therefore, to
    the extent that Perry is challenging the fine directly, his claim is barred by the
    appeal waiver. See 
    id.
    In the appeal waiver, however, Perry reserved the right to claim
    ineffective assistance of counsel. “Sixth Amendment 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. 2014) (citation omitted).         This court will consider
    ineffective assistance claims on direct appeal “only in rare cases in which the
    record allows a reviewing court to fairly evaluate the merits of the claim”. 
    Id.
    (citation omitted). We conclude the record is sufficiently developed for our
    considering Perry’s two claims.
    First, Perry’s NOA was required to be filed within 14 days from the
    “entry” of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i). For the purposes of
    Rule 4(b), judgement is entered “when it is entered on the criminal docket”.
    Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(6). Although Perry’s judgment of conviction was
    filed 12 September 2022, it was not entered on the docket until the following
    day, 13 September. Therefore, his 27 September 2022 NOA was timely filed,
    and he, therefore, fails to show counsel was ineffective on that basis.
    2
    Case: 22-20508      Document: 00516809335          Page: 3    Date Filed: 07/05/2023
    No. 22-20508
    Next, assuming his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to
    the fine, Perry has not shown the requisite prejudice. See Strickland v.
    Washington, 
    466 U.S. 668
    , 694, 697 (1984) (providing defendant must show
    reasonable probability outcome would be different absent counsel’s
    ineffectiveness). The record reflects that the district court considered the
    information in the presentence investigation report concerning Perry’s
    ability to pay a fine and determined he had the ability to pay a reduced fine of
    $3,000 in installments during his incarceration and after release. Perry has
    not identified any additional evidence his trial counsel could have presented
    to demonstrate that he was incapable of paying a fine. Therefore, he has not
    shown there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s failing to
    object, the district court would not have imposed the fine. See Strickland, 
    466 U.S. at 694
    .
    AFFIRMED.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 22-20508

Filed Date: 7/5/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 7/6/2023