United States v. Robert Altmann, 691 F. App'x 74

Defendant Robert Lee Altmann pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to one count of bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1344.
The district court sentenced Altmann to 12 months and 1 day imprisonment and 5 years supervised release.
On appeal Altmann argued (1) prosecutorial misconduct at sentencing based on unsubstantiated statements about victim loss, (2) ineffective assistance of sentencing counsel for failing to object, and (3) procedural sentencing error under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
The Government moved to dismiss the appeal as to the sentence based on an appeal-waiver in Altmann’s plea agreement.
The court reviewed the misconduct claim for plain error, considered whether ineffective-assistance could be raised on direct appeal, and evaluated the validity and scope of the appeal waiver.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Prosecutorial misconduct at sentencing	Prosecutor relied on unsubstantiated statements about victim loss to argue for custody	Government: no improper or prejudicial remarks; sentencing remarks were proper	No misconduct found; claim rejected (plain-error review)
Ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing	Counsel was deficient for not objecting to prosecutor's statements	Government: record does not conclusively show ineffective assistance; should be raised on § 2255	Not resolved on direct appeal; record insufficient—raise in § 2255 if at all
Validity of appeal waiver	Waiver should not bar review of procedural § 3553(a) claim	Government: waiver was knowing and voluntary and covers the sentencing challenge	Waiver valid and covers the procedural-sentencing claim; appeal of sentence dismissed

United States v. Caro, 597 F.3d 608 (4th Cir.) (defines standard for prosecutorial misconduct review)
United States v. Alerre, 430 F.3d 681 (4th Cir.) (plain-error review for unpreserved sentencing objections)
United States v. Thornsbury, 670 F.3d 532 (4th Cir.) (standards for validity and scope of plea appeal waivers)