United States v. Wilfredo Carranza, 640 F. App'x 248

Wilfredo Antonio Romero Carranza, an El Salvador citizen, was convicted by a jury of unlawful reentry of a felon under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 and sentenced to 84 months.
At trial, the district judge briefly questioned a government witness outside the jury’s presence about the scope of his investigation (A-file vs. electronic databases).
Carranza alleged (1) the judge’s questioning violated due process by enabling tailored testimony, (2) ineffective assistance of counsel because defense counsel did not timely review the PSR with him and failed to prevent testimony establishing an element of the charge, and (3) constructive denial of counsel because of a breakdown in communication that should have prompted appointment of new counsel.
The Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s courtroom management deference, the standards for raising ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal, and the test for constructive denial of counsel.
The court concluded the judge’s brief questioning did not usurp the prosecutor’s role or create appearance of bias, found no record-based, conclusively apparent ineffective assistance, and held there was no constructive denial warranting substitution before sentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Judicial questioning of witness	Judicial questioning outside jury allowed tailoring and violated due process	Court may call and examine witnesses; judge entitled to manage trial	No violation; brief, outside-the-jury questioning did not usurp prosecutor or prejudice defendant
Ineffective assistance on the record	Counsel failed to timely review PSR and allowed prejudicial testimony; amounted to ineffective assistance	Ineffectiveness not conclusively shown on the record; such claims normally raised on §2255	Rejected on direct appeal—record does not conclusively show ineffective assistance; preserved for §2255 if appropriate
Constructive denial / substitution of counsel	Complete communication breakdown required new counsel; sentencing counsel ineffective	No complete breakdown or total failure to test prosecution; district court did not abuse discretion by not substituting counsel	No constructive denial; no abuse of discretion in refusing substitution before sentencing

United States v. Morrow, 925 F.2d 779 (4th Cir. 1991) (judge may interrupt or question to clarify and ensure fair, efficient trial)
United States v. Smith, 452 F.3d 323 (4th Cir. 2006) (deference to district court on trial management)
United States v. Godwin, 272 F.3d 659 (4th Cir. 2001) (court must avoid appearance of partiality through intervention)
United States v. Parodi, 703 F.2d 768 (4th Cir. 1983) (judge must not appear to believe accused guilty or usurp counsel’s role)
United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (2004) (error affects substantial rights only if it had substantial and injurious effect on verdict)
United States v. Reevey, 364 F.3d 151 (4th Cir. 2004) (review for abuse of discretion on motions to substitute counsel)
United States v. DeTemple, 162 F.3d 279 (4th Cir. 1998) (de novo review when Sixth Amendment denial of counsel is alleged)
United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984) (circumstances permitting presumption of prejudice from total lack of adversarial testing)
United States v. Powell, 680 F.3d 350 (4th Cir. 2012) (ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal permissible only if conclusively shown in record)