J. Garvan Murtha, Senior District Judge of the United * States District Court for the District of Vermont, sitting by designation.

1 08-4246-cr United States v. Baston



### UNITE D STATES C OURT OF AP PEALS FOR T HE SE COND CIRCU IT



## SUM MARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO SUMMARY ORDERS FILED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS P E RM ITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1 AND FEDERAL RUL E O FA P P E L LAT E P RO C E D U RE 3 2

. 1

. I NAB R I E FO RO T H E RPA P E RI NWH I C HAL I T I GANT CITES A SUMMARY ORDER, IN EACH PARAGRAPH IN WHICH A CITATION APPEARS, AT LEAST ONE CITATION MUST EITHER BE TO THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE NOTATION: “(SUMMARY ORDER).” UNLESS THE SUMMARY ORDER IS AVAILABLE IN AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE WHICH IS PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE WITHOUT PAYMENT OF FEE (SUCH AS THE DATABASE AVAILABLE AT HTTP://WWW.CA2.USCOURTS.GOV), THE PARTY CITING THE SUMMARY ORDER MUST FILE AND SERVE A COPY OF THAT SUMMARY ORDER TOGETHER WITH THE PAPER IN WHICH THE SUMMARY ORDER IS CITED. IF NO COPY IS SERVED BY REASON OF THE AVAILABILITY OF THE ORDER ON SUCH A DATABASE, THE CITATION MUST INCLUDE REFERENCE TO THAT DATABASE AND THE DOCKET NUMBER OF THE CASE IN WHICH THE ORDER WAS ENTERED.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan 3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of 4 New York, on the 9th day of December, two thousand nine. 5 6 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, 7 Chief Judge, 8 PETER W. HALL, 9 Circuit Judge, 10 J. GARVAN MURTHA, 11 District Judge. * 12 13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 14 Appellee, 15 16 17 -v.- 08-4246-cr WILSON JAMES BASTON, JR., also known 18 19 as Will James, also known as Wil 20 James,2 1 Defendant-Appellant. 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 3 APPEARING FOR APPELLANT: J. SCOTT PORTER, Seneca Falls, 4 New York. 5 6 7 APPEARING FOR APPELLEE: GLEN G. McGORTY (Preet Bharara 8 and Daniel A. Braun, on the 9 brief), United States Attorney’s 10 Office for the Southern District 11 of New York, New York, New York. 12 13 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District 14 Court for the Southern District of New York (Baer, J.). 15 16 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED 17 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be 18 AFFIRMED

. 19 20 Wil sonBa sto n a ppe als a jud gme nt sen ten cin g h im to 21 sev ent eenco ncu rre nt terms of 135 mo nth s i mpr iso nme nt aft er 22 he ple d g uil ty to mul tip le cou nts ofma il andwi re fra ud. 23 Bas tonar gue s o n a ppe al tha t h is sen ten ce sho uldbe va cat ed 24 bot h b eca use th e g ove rnmentbr eac hedth e p leaag ree men t a nd 25 bec aus e h is owntr ial co uns el pro vid ed con sti tut ion all y 26 ine ffe cti ve ass ist anc e. He al so con ten ds tha t t he 27 res tit uti on ord er is imp rop er. 28 29 We ass ume th e p art ies ’ f ami lia rit y w ithth e u nde rly ing 30 fac ts, th e p roc edu ral hi sto ry, an d t he iss ues pr ese nte d f or 31 rev iew

. 32 33 [1] Bas tonar gue s t hatth e g ove rnmentbr eac hedth e t erm s o f 34 the Pl ea Agr eementinit s s ent enc ingme mor andum andatth e 35 sen ten cin g h ear ing

. We “re vie w i nte rpr eta tio ns of ple a 36 agr eement s d e n ovoan d i n a cco rda nce wi th pri nci ple s o f 37 con tra ct law .” Un ite d S tat es v. Gri ffi n, 510 F. 3d 354 , 3 60 38 (2dCi r. 200 7) (qu oti ng Uni tedSt ate s v . R ier a, 298 F. 3d 39 128 , 1 33 (2dCi r. 200 2))

. Butwh ere --a s h ere --ade fen dan t 40 fai ls to pre ser ve an obj ect iontoth e g ove rnment ’s pur por ted 41 bre achofa ple a a gre eme nt, pl ainer rorre vie w a ppl ies

. 42 Puc ket t v . U nit ed Sta tes , 1 29 S. Ct. 14 23, 14 28 (20 09)

. 43 Pla in err or rev iewal low s ( butdo es notre qui re) va cat ur or 44 rev ers al if the de fen dan t p rov es: (1 ) e rro r; (2) th at is 45 “cl earorob vio us, ra the r t hansu bje ct to rea son abl e 46 dis put e”; (3 ) t hataf fec tedsu bst ant ial ri ght s, “wh ichin3 1 the or din aryca se mea ns
. . . tha t i t a ffe cte d t he out come 2 of the di str ictco urtpr oce edi ngs ”; and(4 ) t hat“s eri ous ly 3 aff ect [s] th e f air nes s, int egr ityorpu bli c r epu tat ionof 4 jud ici al pro cee din gs. ” Id. at14 29 (in ter nal qu ota tio n 5 mar ks omi tte d). T hus , o ur abi lit y t o r eme dy the er roris 6 “st ric tlyci rcumsc rib ed. ” Id. at14 28. “ Mee tin g a ll fou r 7 pro ngs is di ffi cul t, ‘as itsh oul d b e.’ ” Id. at14 29 8 (qu oti ng Uni tedSt ate s v . D omi ngu ez Ben ite z, 542 U. S. 74, 83 9 n.9 (2 004 )). 10 11 Bas tonas ser ts tha t t he gov ernmen t b rea che d whenit 12 ado pte d ahi ghe r l oss fi gur e i n t he Rev ise d P re- Sen ten ce 13 Rep ort(“ PSR ”) and , s epa rat ely , whenitre spo nde d t o a n 14 inquir y o f t he cou rt at sen ten cin g b y d isc lai min g a ny rea son 15 to que sti on the ac cur acyofth e r evi sedlo ss fig ure s. 16 Reg ard ingth e s ent enc ingme mor andum, itis do ubt ful th at the 17 gov ernmen t’s me mor andum con sti tut es a b rea ch of anyte rm of 18 the Pl ea Agr eement

. By the ti me of the go ver nme nt’ s 19 mem ora ndum, Bas ton ’s ownla wye r h ad con ced ed the ac cur acyof 20 the Re vis ed PSR

. It is cer tai nlypo ssi ble (a nd Bas tonha s 21 notco nvi nci ngl y a rgu ed oth erw ise ) t hatth e d ist ric t c our t 22 wou ld hav e i mpo sedth e s ent enc e c all ed forinth e Revi sed 23 PSRonth e b asi s o f B ast on’ s c onc ess ional one , r ega rdl ess of 24 the go ver nme nt’ s s tat eme nt in its me mor andum. 25 26 Reg ard ingth e s ent enc inghe ari ng, th e g ove rnment ’s 27 con duc t i n t his ca se clo sel y p ara lle ls the co ndu ct at iss ue 28 in Rie ra. And forth e s ame re aso ns tha t t he cou rt fou nd no 29 err or the re, se e 2 98 F.3 d a t 1 34, we fi nd no err or her e. 30 31 [2] Bas tonal so con ten ds tha t h is tri al cou nse l p rov ide d 32 con sti tut ion all y i nef fec tiv e a ssi sta nce byco nce din g t he 33 acc ura cy of the Re vis ed PSRan d b y f ail ingtosc rut ini ze and 34 cha lle nge th e l oss ca lcu lat ion s i n t he Rev ise d P SR. 35 Ine ffe cti ve ass ist anc e c lai ms are go ver nedbyth e f ami lia r 36 sta nda rd enu nci ate d i n S tri ckl andv. Wa shi ngt on, 46 6 U .S. 37 668 (1 984 ). “Whenfa cedwi th a c lai m f or ine ffe cti ve 38 ass ist anc e o f c oun sel ondi rec t a ppe al, ” t his Co urtma y: 39 “(1 ) d ecl ine tohe ar the cl aim , p erm itt ingth e a ppe lla nt to 40 rai se the is sue
. . . [i n]

. . . [a] ha bea s c orp us 41 [pe tit ion ] .

. . ; (2 ) r ema nd the cl aimtoth e d ist ric t 42 cou rt forne ces sar y f act fin din g; or (3) de cid e t he cla im on 43 the re cor d b efo re [th e C our t]. ” Uni tedSt ate s v . M orr is, 44 350 F. 3d 32, 39 (2 d C ir. 20 03)

. Tho ughth ese th ree op tio ns 45 rem ainav ail abl e t o u s, the re is a “ bas eli ne ave rsi on to 46 res olv ingin eff ect ive nes s c lai ms on dir ectre vie w,” id

.4 1 (qu oti ng Uni tedSt ate s v . S alameh , 1 52 F.3 d 8 8, 161 (2 d C ir. 2 199 8)) , a nd the Su pre me Cou rt has st ate d apr efe ren ce tha t 3 ine ffe cti ve ass ist anc e c lai ms be res olv ed in a h abe as 4 pet iti on rat herth an on dir ectap pea l. Ma ssa ro v. Uni ted 5 Sta tes , 5 38 U.S . 5 00, 50 4 ( 200 3). Adhe rin g t o t his 6 gui dan ce, we di smi ss Bas ton ’s ine ffe cti ve ass ist anc e c lai ms 7 wit hou t p rej udi ce to the ir bei ng re- fil ed as par t o f a ny 8 fut ure ha bea s p roc eed ing

. 9 10 [3] Bas tonal so arg ues th at the am oun t o f r est itu tio n 11 ord ere d b y t he dis tri ct cou rt is imp rop er andsh oul d b e 12 vac ate d. We re vie w a n o rde r o f r est itu tio n f or abu se of 13 dis cre tio n, andwe wi ll fin d e rro r u nde r t his st and ardon ly 14 if the re sti tut ionor der“r est s o n a n e rro r o f l aw, a 15 cle arl y e rro neo us fin din g o f f act , o r o the rwi se can notbe 16 loc ate d w ith in the ra nge ofpe rmi ssi ble de cis ion s.” U nit ed 17 Sta tes v. Pe ars on, 57 0 F .3d48 0, 486 (2 d C ir. 20 09) 18 (in ter nal qu ota tio n m ark s o mit ted ). Be cau se Bas tondi d n ot 19 obj ectatse nte nci ng to the re sti tut ionam oun t, we rev iew 20 his cl aimfo r p lai n e rro r. Se e U nit ed Sta tes v. Nu cci , 3 64 21 F.3 d 4 19, 42 1 ( 2d Cir . 2 004 ). Ba sto n f ail s t o a rti cul ate a 22 the oryofer rorth at is suf fic ien tly“p lai n” to wit hst and 23 pla in err or rev iew

. 24 25 Finding no merit in Baston’s remaining arguments, we 26 hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. 27 28 29 FOR THE COURT: 30 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK 31 By: 32 33 34

___________________________