14-12 58

Unite d Sta tes v . Tal eek B rooks



### U N I T E D S TAT E S C OURT O F AP PEA L S FOR T HE S E C O

ND C I R C U I T



## S UM M ARY O RD E R

R UL I NG S B Y S U

M M A R Y OR D E R D O NO T H

A V E PR E C E D EN T I A

L E F FE C T

. C I T

A T I O N T O A S U

M M A R Y OR D E R F I LE D ON OR AFT E R J

A N U A R Y 1, 2007, I S PE R M I T T E D A

N D I S GO

V E R NE D B Y F E D E R

A L R ULE O F A P PE L L

A T E P R OC E D UR E 32. 1 AND TH IS CO UR T ’ S L O C

A L R ULE 32.1.1. WHEN C I T I NG A S U M M A R Y OR D E R I N A

D O CU M EN T F I LE D W I T H T H I S C OUR T , A P

A R T Y M U S T C I T E E I T HE R T HE F E D E R A L A P PEN

D I X OR A

N

E LE C T R O N I C DA T A B AS E ( W I T H T HE NO T

A T I O N “ S U M M A R Y OR D E R ”). A P

A R T Y C I T I NG A S U

M M A R Y OR D E R M U S T S E R V E A C O PY O F I T O

N A NY P A R T Y NO T R

E PR E S ENT E D B Y C OU

N S E L

.

1 At a state d term of the U nited Stat es Co urt o f App eals 2 for t he Se cond Circu it, h eld a t the Thur good Marsh all U nited 3 State s Cou rthou se, 4 0 Fol ey Square, in t he Ci ty of New York, 4 on th e 28 day of Ma y, tw o tho usand fift een. th 5 6 PRESE NT: DENNI S JAC OBS, 7 ROSEM ARY S . POO LER, 8 PETER W. HALL, 9 Circu it Ju dges. 10 11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X UNITE D STA TES O F AME RICA, 12 Appel lee, 13 14 15 -v.- 14-12 58 16 17 TALEE K BRO OKS, 18 Defen dant- Appel lant. 19 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 20 FOR A PPELLANT: Thoma s F.X . Dun n, Ne w Yor k, Ne w 21 22 York. 23 24 FOR A PPELL EE: Rober t T. Polem eni ( with David 25 C. Ja mes, on th e bri ef), for 26 Kelly T. C urrie , Act ing U nited 27 State s Att orney for the E aster n

11 Distr ict o f New York , Bro oklyn , 2 New Y ork. 3 4 Appea l fro m a j udgme nt of the Unite d Sta tes D istri ct 5 Court for the E aster n Dis trict of N ew Yo rk (M ausko pf, J .). 6 7 UPON DUE C ONSID ERATI ON, I T IS HEREB Y ORD ERED, ADJU DGED 8 AND D ECREE D that the appea l be DISMI SSED

. 9 10 Talee k Bro oks a ppeal s fro m the judg ment of th e Uni ted 11 State s Dis trict Cour t for the Easte rn Di stric t of New Y ork 12 (Maus kopf, J.), sent encin g himto 5 0 yea rs’ i mpris onmen t 13 follo wed b y a l ife t erm o f sup ervis ed re lease , aft er he pled 14 guilt y to sexua l exp loita tion of a childand distr ibuti on of 15 childporn ograp hy. We as sume the p artie s’ fa milia rity with 16 the u nderl ying facts , the proc edura l his tory, and the i ssues 17 prese nted for r eview

. 18 19 In br ief, Brook s: po ssess ed th ousan ds of vide os an d 20 image s dep ictin g vio lent childporn ograp hy, m ade t hose 21 video s andimag es av ailab le fo r oth ers t o dow nloadover the 22 inter net t hroug hout a sev en-ye ar pe riod, prod uced grote sque 23 childporn ograp hy in a cl assro om of the publi c ele menta ry 24 schoo l whe re he work ed as a te acher ’s ai de, a nd re peate dly 25 sexua lly a ssaul ted a ten- year- old b oy wh o att endedthat 26 eleme ntary scho ol. 27 28 A 201 2 gra nd ju ry in dictm ent c harge d Bro oks w ith s even 29 count s of sexua l exp loita tion of a child , in viola tion of 18 30 U.S.C . § 2 251(a ) and(e); four coun ts of dist ribut ion o f 31 childporn ograp hy, i n vio latio n of 18 U. S.C. § 225 2(a)( 2); 32 and o ne co unt o f pos sessi on of chil d por nogra phy, in 33 viola tion of 18 U.S. C. § 2252( a)(4) (B). In F ebrua ry 20 13, 34 Brook s ple d gui lty p ursua nt to a pl ea ag reeme nt to one 35 explo itati on co unt a nd on e dis tribu tion count . Th e ple a 36 agree ment recit ed th e gov ernme nt’s estim ation that “the 37 effec tive Guide lines rang e is 15 - 50 ye ars,” and 38 ackno wledg ed th e sta tutor y max imum sente nce f or ea ch co unt 39 to wh ich B rooks was plead ing: 30 ye ars’ impri sonme nt fo r the 40 explo itati on co unt, and 2 0 yea rs’ i mpris onmen t for the 41 distr ibuti on co unt. The plea agree ment also inclu ded a n 42 appea l wai ver “ in th e eve nt th e Cou rt im poses a te rm of 43 impri sonme nt of 50 y ears or le ss.” 44 45 After plea ding guilt y andbefo re se ntenc ing, Brook s 46 fileda pr o se lette r exp laini ng to the distr ict c ourt that 47 he ha d ple d gui lty o nly b ecaus e he lacke d con fiden ce in his

21 couns el. In re spons e to Brook s’s l etter , the dist rict court 2 relie ved d efens e cou nsel in Ju ly 20 13, a ppoin ted a new 3 attor ney, and a djour ned t he se ntenc ing d ate s o tha t Bro oks 4 and h is ne w att orney coul d dis cuss wheth er to move to 5 withd raw t he pl ea. The n ew at torne y inf ormedthe court in 6 Novem ber 2 013 t hat B rooks had decid ed ag ainst movi ng to 7 withd raw h is gu ilty plea, and in De cembe r the dist rict court 8 accep ted t he gu ilty plea. 9 10 At Br ooks’ s sen tenci ng, t he di stric t cou rt fo und t hat 11 the U .S. S enten cing Guide lines advi sory range was 30 to 50 12 years ’ imp rison ment, and sente nced Brook s to 50 ye ars’ 13 impri sonme nt, w hich was t he st atuto ry ma ximum

. 14 15 On ap peal, Broo ks ar gues that: (1) he sh ould be 16 relea sed f rom t he ap peal waive r in his p lea a greem ent 17 becau se hi s cou nsel was i neffe ctive in a dvisi ng hi m to enter 18 the p lea a greem ent, and ( 2) hi s sen tence is s ubsta ntive ly 19 unrea sonab le. 20 21 “When face d wit h a c laim for i neffe ctive assi stanc e of 22 couns el on dire ct ap peal, we m ay: ( 1) de cline to h ear t he 23 claim , per mitti ng th e app ellan t to raise the issue as p art 24 of a subse quent peti tion for w rit o f hab eas c orpus purs uant 25 to 28 U.S. C. § 2255; (2) reman d the clai m to the d istri ct 26 court for neces sary factf indin g; or (3) decid e the clai m on 27 the r ecordbefo re us .” Unite d Sta tes v . Ada ms , 768 F.3d 28 219, 226 ( 2d Ci r. 20 14) ( quoti ng Unite d Sta tes v . Tarbell , 29 728 F .3d 1 22, 1 28 (2 d Cir . 201 3)). Mind ful t hat t he fi rst 30 optio n is gener ally prefe rred, see U nited Stat es v. 31 Oladi meji , 463 F.3d152, 154 (2d C ir. 2 006), we d ismis s tha t 32 claimwith out p rejud ice t o Bro oks’s righ t to advan ce it in a 33 colla teral proc eedin g und er 34 § 225 5, or othe rwise

. 35 36 Under such circ umsta nce, we wi ll pr ovisi onall y enf orce 37 the a ppeal waiv er “u nless and until [the defe ndant ] pre vails 38 (by a habe as pe titio n) in prov ing t hat h is ap peal waive r 39 shoul d be voide d bec ause he re ceive d ine ffect ive a ssist ance 40 of co unsel .” Oladi meji , 463 F.3dat 1 55; see a lso U nited 41 State s v. Monzo n , 359 F.3d110 (2d C ir. 2 004). Bec ause the 42 waive r rem ains intac t for the purpo ses o f thi s app eal, we 43 need not r each Brook s’s c halle nge t o the subs tanti ve 44 reaso nable ness of hi s sen tence

. 45 46 Even if th e wai ver i s oth erwis e une nforc eable , see 47 Unite d Sta tes v . Goo dman , 165 F.3d169, 174 (2d C ir. 1 999),

31 Brook s wou ld no t be entit led t o rel ief b ecaus e his 2 sente ncing chal lenge fail s on the m erits . “T he di stric t 3 court s hav e dis creti on to sele ct an appr opria te se ntenc e, 4 and i n doi ng so are statu toril y bou nd to cons ider the 5 facto rs li sted in [1 8 U.S .C.] § 355 3(a), incl uding the 6 advis ory G uidel ines range .” Unite d Sta tes v . Cav era , 550 7 F.3d 180, 188 ( 2d Ci r. 20 08). “[O] ur su bstan tive revie w of 8 a sen tence is a kin t o rev iew u nder an ab use-o f-dis creti on 9 stand ard,” wher eby a dist rict court abus es it s dis creti on if 10 its s enten ce is “bas ed on an e rrone ous v iew o f the law or on 11 a cle arly erron eous asses sment of t he ev idenc e, or a 12 decis ion t hat c annot be l ocate d wit hin t he ra nge o f 13 permi ssibl e dec ision s.” Unite d Sta tes v . Par k , 758 F.3d 14 193, 199–2 00 (2 d Cir . 201 4) (i ntern al qu otati on ma rks a nd 15 alter ation omit ted). Her e, th e dis trict cour t didnot abuse 16 its d iscre tion by im posin g a 5 0-yea r sen tence , at the t op of 17 the e ffect ive G uidel ines range . Aft er ca reful ly co nside ring 18 the S ectio n 355 3(a) facto rs, t he di stric t cou rt de termi ned 19 that such a ter m of impri sonme nt wa s suf ficie nt, b ut no t 20 great er th an ne cessa ry to serv e the purp oses of se ntenc ing. 21 See U

nited Stat es v. Dorv ee , 616 F.3d174, 182 (2d C ir. 22 2010)

. 23 24 For t he fo regoi ng re asons , andfind ing n o mer it in 25 Brook s’s o ther argum ents, we h ereby DISMI SS the a ppeal

. 26 27 FOR T HE CO URT: 28 CATHE RINE O’HAG AN WO LFE, CLERK 29

4