United States v. Horacio Munar, 525 F. App'x 305

Munar was convicted in 2007 by a jury of conspiracy to commit bank fraud, seven counts of aiding and abetting bank fraud, and conspiracy to commit money laundering.
The convictions stemmed from a scheme to obtain checks on U.S. accounts, mail them to third-party payees who forged endorsements, and use U.S. operators to present the checks.
Initial district court sentence was 300 months and restitution of $1,683,018.85.
On direct appeal this court affirmed convictions but vacated a six-level multiple-victim enhancement and remanded for resentencing.
On remand, the district court applied a two-level multiple-victim enhancement and set a range of 262–327 months, imposing the low end.
Munar argues the sentence is procedurally and substantively unreasonable and that appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising more issues on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the within-guidelines sentence is procedurally reasonable	Munar argues district court ignored objections to enhancements.	Mun ar asserts errors and improper reliance on government memo.	Presumption of reasonableness applies; no procedural error shown.
Whether objections to enhancements were waived or barred by law-of-the-case	Munar contends remand allowed challenge to enhancements.	Waived; law-of-the-case bars reformation of enhancements.	Law-of-the-case barred the objections; no procedural error.
Whether district court should have addressed a variance request under 3553(a)	Munar sought a variance based on various factors.	Court considered factors but declined variance.	District court did not abuse by denying variance within guidelines.
Whether appellate counsel's effectiveness claims are reviewable on direct appeal	Ineffective-assistance claim should be reviewed.	Claims should be raised collateral §2255 proceedings.	Ineffective assistance claim not reviewable on direct appeal.

United States v. Cochrane, 702 F.3d 334 (6th Cir. 2012) (rebuttable presumption of substantive reasonableness for within-guidelines sentences)
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (Supreme Court 2007) (explains limited need for lengthy explanation when imposing within-guidelines sentence)
United States v. Simmons, 587 F.3d 348 (6th Cir. 2009) (preserves substantive reasonableness analysis framework)
United States v. Adesida, 129 F.3d 846 (6th Cir. 1997) (law-of-the-case bar on reconsideration of issues not raised on first appeal)
United States v. Sedore, 512 F.3d 819 (6th Cir. 2008) (case on appellate strategy and review limitations)