13-3275-cr United States v. Levine et al.


### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS **FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT**



## SUMMARY ORDER

**R ULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT**  **. C**  **ITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER**  **J ANUARY**  **1, 2007,**  **IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY F**  **EDERAL R** **ULE OF A** **PPELLATE P**  **ROCEDURE 32.1**  **AND THIS COURT ’**  **S L**  **OCAL R** **ULE 32.1.1.**  **W HEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A**  **DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT ,**  **A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE F**  **EDERAL A** **PPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE**  **( WITH THE NOTATION**  **“ SUMMARY ORDER**  **”). A**  **PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL**  **. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals**  1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United** 2 **States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,** 3 **on the 6 th** **day of October, two thousand fifteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,** 6 **PIERRE N. LEVAL,** 7 **Circuit Judges ,**  8 **GEOFFREY W. CRAWFORD,** * 9 **District Judge**
**.** 10 11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 12 **UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,** 13 **Appellee** 14 15 **-v.- 13-3275** 16 17 **LULZIM KUPA,** 18 **Defendant-Appellant**
**.** 19 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 20 21

* The Honorable Geoffrey W. Crawford, United States District Judge for the District of Vermont, sitting by designation.

1**FOR APPELLANT:** JAMES R. FROCCARO JR., LAW 1 OFFICE OF JAMES R. FROCCARO, 2 Port Washington, New York. 3 4 **FOR APPELLEE:** ROBERT T. POLEMENI (with David 5 C. James on the brief ) forKelly 6 T. Currie, United States 7 Attorney for the Eastern 8 District of New York, Brooklyn, 9 New York. 10 11 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District 12 Court for the Eastern District of New York (Gleeson, J. ). 13 14 **UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED** 15 **AND DECREED**that the judgment of the district court be 16 **AFFIRMED**

. 17 18 Lulzim Kupa appeals from the judgment of the United 19 States District Court for the Eastern District of New York 20 (Gleeson, J. ), sentencing Kupa to a 132-month term of 21 imprisonment

. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 22 underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues 23 presented for review. 24 25 On appeal, Kupa asserts a single claim of ineffective 26 assistance of counsel. This Circuit has a “baseline 27 aversion to resolving ineffectiveness claims on direct 28 review.” United States v. Morris , 350 F.3d 32, 39 (2d Cir. 29 2003) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 30 See Massaro v. United States , 538 U.S. 500, 504 (2003) 31 (“[I]n most cases a motion brought under § 2255 is 32 preferable to direct appeal for deciding claims of 33 ineffective assistance.”). 34 35 Here, however, it is not difficult to adjudicate Kupa’s 36 claim on appeal. It is clear from the record that Kupa’s 37 claim fails on the merits because Kupa cannot prevail on the 38 performance prong of Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 39 (1984), especially because “[j]udicial scrutiny of counsel’s 40 performance must be highly deferential.” Id. at 689. 41 Kupa’s only argument is that counsel failed to argue that 42 Kupa should not be deemed a career offender. But counsel 43 did so argue: “I, as I indicated, wholeheartedly agree . . . 44 that he’s not a career offender.” A. 128; see also A. 131- 45 33. Indeed, the government accused Kupa’s counsel of 46 breaching the plea agreement precisely because he made this 47

2argument. Government Appendix 29 (“[T]he government claims 1 that we have breached the plea agreement by arguing that 2 defendant is not a career offender.”). 3 4 For the foregoing reasons, and finding no merit in 5 Kupa’s other arguments, we hereby **AFFIRM** the judgment of the 6 district court. 7 8 FOR THE COURT: 9 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK 10 11

3