Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50526/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50526-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Boruch Yechiel Rapoport
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-50526

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

BORUCH YECHIEL RAPOPORT, also known as Barry, also known as 

Boruch Yesiel Rapoport,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:14-CR-1741-1

Before BARKSDALE, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Boruch Yechiel Rapoport pleaded 

guilty to conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute, in violation 

of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. In that agreement, Rapoport waived the 

right to appeal his sentence, with some exceptions, including if his

 

* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. 

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 11, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-50526 Document: 00513375620 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/11/2016
No. 15-50526

2

constitutional rights were violated by, inter alia, ineffective assistance of 

counsel. 

Rapoport was sentenced to a within-advisory-Guidelines term of 16 

months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Rapoport acknowledges the appeal waiver 

but maintains the issues presented fall within the ineffective-assistance

exception. In that regard, he contends his trial counsel provided ineffective 

assistance at sentencing by failing to object to: his not receiving a minor-role 

adjustment, pursuant to Guideline § 3B1.2; and, the procedural and 

substantive unreasonableness of his sentence.

Generally, “claims of ineffective assistance of counsel should not be 

litigated on direct appeal, unless they were previously presented to the trial 

court”. United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. 

Ct. 123 (2014). For ineffective-assistance claims not presented in district court, 

“[i]t is only in rare cases in which the record allows a reviewing court to fairly 

evaluate the merits of the claim that we will consider such a claim”. Id.

(internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Kizzee, 150 F.3d 

497, 502–03 (5th Cir. 1998) (record insufficient for review where district court 

did not hear testimony or make factual findings as to ineffective-assistance 

claims). 

Although Rapoport’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims fall within 

an exception to his appeal waiver, the record is not sufficiently developed to 

afford them fair consideration due to his failure to raise them in district court. 

See Isgar, 739 F.3d at 841. Accordingly, we decline to consider his claims on 

direct appeal; Rapoport may raise them on collateral review under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255. See Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 508–09 (2003).

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-50526 Document: 00513375620 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/11/2016