United States v. Teofilo Cervin
697 F. App'x 166
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Teofilo Salinas Cervin pleaded guilty, via written plea agreement, to conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine in violation of federal law.
- The district court calculated the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines range and sentenced Cervin to 210 months’ imprisonment (the low end of the Guidelines range).
- Cervin received the benefit of dismissal of a separate 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) charge; the court found he was a principal supplier in the conspiracy.
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief asserting no meritorious issues but questioning sentence reasonableness and potential ineffective assistance of counsel; Cervin received notice and did not file a pro se brief.
- The Fourth Circuit reviewed procedural and substantive reasonableness, and whether ineffective-assistance claims were cognizable on direct appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural reasonableness of sentence | Cervin argues sentence may be unreasonable | Government contends Guidelines were properly calculated and procedures followed | Court found no procedural error; Guidelines range calculated, counsel allowed to argue, allocution afforded |
| Substantive reasonableness of within-Guidelines sentence | Cervin contends sentence excessive | Government relies on presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentence and § 3553(a) factors | Sentence affirmed as substantively reasonable; no § 3553(a) facts overcame presumption |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel raised on direct appeal | Cervin (through counsel) suggests counsel may have been ineffective | Government argues such claims are not conclusively shown on record and belong in § 2255 | Court held ineffective-assistance claim not conclusively shown on record; should be raised, if at all, in a § 2255 motion |
| Motion to abey appeal pending § 2255 | Cervin requested abeyance to pursue § 2255 | Government opposed; no good cause shown | Court denied motion to place appeal in abeyance |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedures when counsel files a brief asserting no meritorious appeal)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard for reviewing sentence reasonableness; procedural and substantive review)
- United States v. Dowell, 771 F.3d 162 (4th Cir. 2014) (presumption of substantive reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences)
- United States v. Galloway, 749 F.3d 238 (4th Cir. 2014) (standard for when ineffective-assistance claims are cognizable on direct appeal)