United States v. Perez
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 22094
| 4th Cir. | 2011Background
- Perez was convicted of conspiracy to manufacture, distribute, and possess with intent to distribute over five kilograms of cocaine under 21 U.S.C. § 846.
- He moved for appointment of new counsel after conviction but before sentencing; the district court denied the request without a hearing and again denied at sentencing.
- At sentencing, Perez argued the presentence report overestimated drug weight and that his attorney was ineffective; the district court declined to substitute counsel and considered the arguments on the PSR.
- The government sought a two-level obstruction of justice enhancement based on Perez’s trial testimony; the court relied on a belief that Perez lied on the stand and on certain conduct when confronted by police.
- The district court overruled defense objections to an aggravated role reduction and, after sua sponte reducing Perez’sCriminal History, imposed a 262-month sentence within a 262–327 month range.
- Perez appealed arguing (i) denial of new counsel, and (ii) improper obstruction of justice enhancement; the Fourth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed/remanded in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of new counsel was an abuse of discretion | Perez contends good cause existed for substitution. | The government argues no good cause and efficient administration. | affirmed denial of motion for new counsel |
| Whether an obstruction of justice enhancement was properly imposed | Perez argues no explicit finding of perjury or willfulness. | The government contends perjury and obstruction were proven. | enhanced sentence reversed and remanded for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (U.S. Supreme Court 1963) (right to counsel for indigents)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. Supreme Court 2007) (unreasonableness review in sentencing)
- United States v. Reevey, 364 F.3d 151 (4th Cir. 2004) (three-factor test for substitution of counsel)
- United States v. Welty, 674 F.2d 185 (3d Cir. 1982) (need inquiry into reasons for dissatisfaction with counsel)
- United States v. Mullen, 32 F.3d 891 (4th Cir. 1994) (trial court must inquire into defendant's counsel complaint)
- United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87 (U.S. Supreme Court 1993) (required particularized findings for perjury-based enhancements)
- United States v. Jones, 308 F.3d 425 (4th Cir. 2002) (perjury element requirements and related standards)
- United States v. Cook, 76 F.3d 596 (4th Cir. 1996) (perjury findings must be explicit)
- United States v. Smith, 62 F.3d 641 (4th Cir. 1995) (defendant's false testimony must be adequately evidenced)
- United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325 (4th Cir. 2009) (reasonableness review in sentencing context)