United States v. Myron Pelech
683 F. App'x 257
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Myron Pelech pled guilty to receipt of child pornography (18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2)) pursuant to a written plea agreement.
- District court sentenced Pelech below Guidelines to 120 months imprisonment, 20 years supervised release, $5,000 fine, and $500 restitution.
- Pelech’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief, challenging only the district court’s enhancement for use of a computer.
- Pelech submitted a pro se supplemental brief alleging lack of jurisdiction, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of counsel.
- Government moved to enforce the appellate-waiver in the plea agreement and to dismiss the appeal insofar as it fell within the waiver.
- The Fourth Circuit reviewed the validity and scope of the waiver de novo, concluded the waiver was valid and enforceable, dismissed parts of the appeal within the waiver, and affirmed other parts; it noted ineffective-assistance claims not conclusively shown on the record should be raised under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of appellate waiver | Pelech implicitly argues his claims should proceed | Government: waiver was knowing and voluntary | Waiver valid and enforceable based on plea agreement and Rule 11 colloquy |
| Scope: challenge to sentence enhancement (computer use) | Counsel sought review of computer-use enhancement | Government: sentencing challenge falls within broad waiver | Challenge falls within waiver; appeal dismissed as to that claim |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Pelech alleges counsel ineffective at trial and plea | Government: waiver does not preserve collateral IAC claims unknown at plea; direct appeal inappropriate unless record conclusively shows IAC | IAC not conclusively shown on record; may be pursued in § 2255 proceedings |
| Prosecutorial misconduct / jurisdiction | Pelech alleges misconduct and lack of jurisdiction | Government: these claims are within waiver or procedurally defaulted | Court found no meritorious issues outside waiver; claims dismissed or for §2255 if not waived/unknown at plea |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (requirements for appointed counsel to file brief when no nonfrivolous issues exist)
- United States v. Copeland, 707 F.3d 522 (4th Cir. 2013) (de novo review of waiver validity)
- United States v. Thornsbury, 670 F.3d 532 (4th Cir. 2012) (enforcement of valid appeal waivers when issue falls within waiver scope)
- United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621 (4th Cir. 2010) (standard for knowing and intelligent waiver)
- United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137 (4th Cir. 2005) (categories of claims not barred by appeal waiver)
- United States v. Craig, 985 F.2d 175 (4th Cir. 1993) (appeal waivers do not preclude certain Sixth Amendment claims)
- United States v. Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214 (4th Cir. 2010) (remanding for § 2255 to develop record when IAC not apparent on direct appeal)
- United States v. Baldovinos, 434 F.3d 233 (4th Cir. 2006) (IAC claims not cognizable on direct appeal unless conclusively shown)
- United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d 424 (4th Cir. 2008) (IAC generally should be raised in collateral proceedings)