United States v. Gregory Alcala, 709 F. App'x 841

Alcala prepared and filed at least 164 federal tax returns for clients between 2009–2014, altering returns to claim larger refunds and diverting excess funds to his own account without client consent.
On December 26, 2013, after his insurer notified him of policy cancellation, Alcala called the insurer and threatened to send a bomb; law enforcement later searched his home and seized computers and documents.
A grand jury charged Alcala with multiple counts; he pleaded guilty to one count of preparing/presenting a false tax return, one count of wire fraud, and one count of making a bomb threat; other counts were dismissed pursuant to a plea agreement.
The parties jointly recommended at least 27 months’ imprisonment; restitution was agreed at roughly $115,842 payable to affected taxpayers and the Treasury.
The PSR produced an offense level of 16 and criminal history category III, yielding a Guidelines range of 27–33 months; at sentencing the court considered § 3553(a) factors including Alcala’s mental health and sentenced him to 33 months plus three years’ supervised release.
Alcala appealed asserting (1) the 33‑month sentence was substantively excessive and (2) ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing for failing to present mitigating evidence and challenge restitution.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Substantive reasonableness of 33‑month sentence	27 months would be reasonable given mitigating § 3553(a) factors	33 months within Guidelines, court reasonably weighed aggravating factors and need to protect the public	Affirmed — within‑Guidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable; no abuse of discretion
Ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing	Counsel failed to present mitigating evidence and to challenge restitution calculation	Record lacks development (no testimony from counsel); claim should be pursued on § 2255 rather than direct appeal	Affirmed — claim deferred to collateral review; not appropriate for resolution on direct appeal

United States v. Alvizo‑Trujillo, 521 F.3d 1015 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard for reviewing substantive reasonableness of sentence)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for sentencing review)
United States v. Mabie, 663 F.3d 322 (8th Cir. 2011) (within‑Guidelines sentences presumptively reasonable)
United States v. Peck, 496 F.3d 885 (8th Cir. 2007) (burden on defendant to show within‑Guidelines sentence unreasonable)
United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (reluctance to reverse district court on substantive reasonableness)
United States v. Gardellini, 545 F.3d 1089 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (same)
United States v. Sanchez‑Gonzalez, 643 F.3d 626 (8th Cir. 2011) (direct‑appeal review of ineffective assistance claims is exceptional)
United States v. Hernandez, 281 F.3d 746 (8th Cir. 2002) (same)
United States v. Cooke, 853 F.3d 464 (8th Cir. 2017) (defer ineffective assistance claims to § 2255 absent a plain miscarriage of justice)
United States v. Ramirez‑Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824 (8th Cir. 2006) (record must be developed to decide ineffective assistance on direct appeal)
Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500 (2003) (ineffective assistance claims normally brought in § 2255 collateral proceedings)