IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-50163

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

GREGORY P. BOYD, 

 Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

Before JOLLY and COSTA, Circuit Judges, and ROSENTHAL, District 

Judge.*

ROSENTHAL, District Judge:

This is an appeal from a conviction and sentence for evading federal income taxes by filing false returns. Neither the legal nor factual issues are 

novel. Defendants prosecuted under 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1) cannot be convicted

unless the government proves that they willfully violated the law. A recurring 

defense argument in such prosecutions is that the government has not proven

willfulness because it failed to show the absence of a good-faith belief that the 

defendant did not have to file returns or pay taxes. The argument is often 

* District Judge of the Southern District of Texas, sitting by designation. 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 9, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-50163 Document: 00512863040 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/09/2014
No. 14-50163

based on a theory about why federal income tax laws are invalid or unenforceable or why they do not apply to the defendant. Defendants often argue that 

even if the theory is so wrong that it is objectively unreasonable, they nonetheless believed it in good faith. 

Gregory P. Boyd was convicted of three counts of filing false income tax 

returns showing he had no taxable income. Before and during trial, Boyd took 

the position that these tax returns reflected his belief that the only people required to pay federal income taxes were those who earned income working for 

the federal government. On appeal, Boyd asserts that the government failed 

to prove that he did not hold this belief in good faith. He challenges the denial 

of funding for neuropsychologist testimony, the admission of uncharged conduct, the prosecutor’s statements, the judge’s statements, the jury instructions, 

the response to a jury note, and the sufficiency of the evidence. We affirm. 

I. BACKGROUND

Boyd filed his tax returns for 2004, 2005, and 2006 in October 2007. He 

had recently read a book called Cracking the Code, which espoused a theory 

that federal income tax obligations applied only to individuals who earned income working for the federal government. The three returns Boyd filed in October 2007 declared that in 2004, 2005, and 2006, he had zero income and zero 

tax liability. That was not true. During those three years, Boyd had continued 

the work he had done in prior years for a company called Pinnacle Partners,

and had earned income totaling $795,000. 

In April 2006, Boyd sent his income and expense information for 2004 to 

the tax specialist he had previously used. This specialist prepared a return for 

Boyd to file showing a tax liability of over $27,000. Boyd did not file the return

he received from the tax specialist. Instead, in October 2007, he filed a return 

for 2004 filled with zeroes: zero income, zero credits and deductions, and zero 

2

 Case: 14-50163 Document: 00512863040 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/09/2014
No. 14-50163

tax liability. One day later, Boyd filed similar returns for tax years 2005 and 

2006. 

The IRS sent Boyd a letter warning that the returns were “frivolous” and 

had “no basis in law,” and that the United States Supreme Court had rejected 

similar arguments for avoiding taxes. ROA 702. Boyd responded with a letter 

rejecting this “attempt at witness-tampering and/or extortion.” ROA 706. The 

IRS scheduled a meeting with Boyd to audit his tax returns, but Boyd did not 

appear.

In March 2013, a grand jury indicted Boyd on three counts of violating

26 U.S.C. § 7206(1). Boyd retained a lawyer in May 2013. Four months later, 

Boyd lost his job. The trial judge denied Boyd’s motion to have counsel appointed because Boyd was not indigent and he had retained counsel who had 

not been discharged. Boyd’s retained counsel continued to represent him, assisted by another lawyer who Boyd asserts was working pro bono. 

The issue at trial was whether Boyd believed in good faith that he had 

no taxable income. Before trial, defense counsel filed motions asking the judge 

for funds under the Criminal Justice Act (“CJA”), 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, for a neuropsychologist to examine Boyd and testify about whether he had a mental 

impairment from playing professional football years earlier, and whether this 

contributed to his belief that what he had read in Cracking the Code was true.

Boyd’s lawyer supported these motions by explaining that in her 2013 interactions with him, she saw signs of poor memory and confusion. The district court 

denied the motions, finding that Boyd was not indigent, as evidenced by the 

fact that he had retained private counsel, and that the proposed testimony was 

irrelevant and unnecessary for Boyd’s defense. 

During opening statements, defense counsel referred to Boyd as “Greg.” 

ROA 553. The district judge interrupted to remind her that in the formality of 

3

 Case: 14-50163 Document: 00512863040 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/09/2014
No. 14-50163

federal court, lawyers should refer to their clients by their last names and not 

by such familiar terms as “Greg,” “Butch,” or “Shorty.” ROA 553. 

At trial, the prosecution introduced Boyd’s filed tax returns for 2003 and 

2007 to 2011 and his tax transcripts for 1990 to 2011. The documents showed 

that Boyd had filed accurate and timely returns for tax years 1994 to 2001, 

during which he was subject to withholding and received a refund. In 2002

and 2003, Boyd did not have taxes withheld and delayed filing his returns. The 

government presented evidence showing that Boyd’s taxable income from 

2004, 2005, and 2006 totaled $795,000 and that his expenses met or exceeded 

his income each year. Pinnacle Partners, the company Boyd worked for, had 

sent him 1099 forms showing his earned income for each of the tax years at 

issue. 

The returns for tax years 2007 to 2011 showed that Boyd continued to

file inaccurate returns declaring zero income even after receiving warnings 

from the IRS. Boyd objected to the admission of both the pre-2004 and post2006 returns and related documents. 

Boyd elected to take the stand. He testified that based on Cracking the 

Code, he believed that only people who received income from the federal government had to pay taxes. Peter Hendrickson, the author of Cracking the Code, 

also testified for the defense. He explained that, contrary to Boyd’s position, 

his book did not express the view that individuals had no obligation to accurately declare their income and pay federal taxes. When the prosecutor questioned Boyd about that statement on cross-examination, Boyd responded that 

he had not heard that part of Hendrickson’s testimony. 

The parties agreed that despite Hendrickson’s testimony, his book did 

present the theory that Boyd described. The prosecutor told the judge that he 

should not have cross-examined Boyd about that part of Hendrickson’s testimony because it could confuse the jury. The district court proposed that the 

4

 Case: 14-50163 Document: 00512863040 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/09/2014
No. 14-50163

parties stipulate that Hendrickson’s testimony was wrong on that point, but 

Boyd did not agree. The prosecutor then proposed that he would clarify in 

closing argument that Hendrickson’s book espoused the theory described. The 

court agreed, and counsel for Boyd did not object. 

In closing argument, the prosecutor told the jury that Cracking the Code

did state that only those who earned income from the federal government had 

to pay federal income taxes. The prosecutor then told the jury that “even 

though it’s in the book, it is wrong. It’s absurd. It’s one of the most preposterous things I’ve ever heard in my life. And I will argue to you that even if Mr. 

Boyd read it, he didn’t believe it.” ROA 1054–55. 

In her closing argument, defense counsel reiterated that Boyd had acted 

in good faith. She used phrases such as “no freaking way,” “same-old crap,” 

and “screw up.” ROA 1075–76, 1084. Later, outside the jury’s presence, the 

judge reprimanded her for using inappropriate language in her argument. 

During the jury’s deliberations, the court responded to four notes. The 

third note asked whether the jury could stay past the usual ending time of 6:00 

p.m. to continue deliberating. The court responded to this note without consulting the lawyers on the record, telling the jury that if they did not finish by 

6:00 p.m., they would return the next day. Before 6:00 p.m., the jury returned 

a guilty verdict on all three counts. 

Before sentencing, Boyd’s counsel again moved for the appointment of a 

neuropsychologist to offer evidence in support of a downward adjustment for 

mental impairment under § 5K2.13 of the Sentencing Guidelines. The court 

denied the motion. The court sentenced Boyd to 33 months on each count, to 

be served concurrently, the lowest end of the 33 to 41 month Guidelines range. 

Boyd timely appealed.

5

 Case: 14-50163 Document: 00512863040 Page: 5 Date Filed: 12/09/2014
No. 14-50163

II. DISCUSSION

A. The Request for CJA Funds for a Neuropsychologist

Defense counsel asked the district court six times to declare Boyd indigent and appoint a neuropsychologist to evaluate him and testify about 

whether he had a mental impairment that contributed to a good-faith belief 

that the returns he filed were truthful and lawful. The district court denied 

each motion, finding that Boyd was not indigent and that the proposed expert 

testimony was not necessary for his defense. Boyd argues that the inability to 

present neuropsychological testimony prejudiced his ability to defend and to 

argue for a reduced sentence. We review these rulings for abuse of discretion. 

See United States v. Hardin, 437 F.3d 463, 468 (5th Cir. 2006). 

Even if Boyd was indigent, to obtain CJA funds, he needed to show that 

the testimony he sought to introduce was necessary. The CJA, 18 U.S.C. § 

3006A(e), provides that a “person who is financially unable to obtain investigative, expert, or other services necessary for adequate representation” may 

obtain such services after demonstrating in an ex parte proceeding that the 

services are necessary. The burden is on the defendant “[t]o justify the authorization of investigative services under § 3006A(e)(1), . . . demonstrat[ing] with 

specificity[ ] the reasons why such services are required.” United States v. Gadison, 8 F.3d 186, 191 (5th Cir. 1993) (emphasis omitted). Boyd intended to 

use the neuropsychologist’s testimony to show that he lacked the mens rea necessary for the charged offenses. 

Under the Insanity Defense Reform Act (IDRA), 18 U.S.C. § 17, insanity 

is an affirmative defense to be proved by clear and convincing evidence, but 

“[m]ental disease or defect does not otherwise constitute a defense.” The IDRA 

does not address whether expert testimony on a mental defect may be admitted 

to negate the specific intent element of a charged offense. Some circuits have 

found such evidence admissible, but only under limited circumstances because 

6

 Case: 14-50163 Document: 00512863040 Page: 6 Date Filed: 12/09/2014
No. 14-50163

of the risks it presents. See United States v. Eff, 524 F.3d 712, 720 n. 11 (5th 

Cir. 2008) (noting the practice in other circuits). The Eleventh Circuit has 

noted that psychiatric evidence rarely negates specific intent, presents an inherent danger of distracting the jury from the presence or absence of mens rea, 

and “may easily slide into wider usage that opens up the jury to theories of 

defense more akin to justification.” United States v. Cameron, 907 F.2d 1051, 

1067 (11th Cir. 1990) (quoting United States v. Pohlot, 827 F.2d 889, 904–05

(3d Cir. 1987). District courts therefore “must examine such . . . evidence carefully to ascertain whether it would, if believed, ‘support a legally acceptable 

theory of lack of mens rea.’” Id. (quoting Pohlot, 827 F.2d at 906).

The Fifth Circuit has not ruled on the issue, and we need not do so here. 

Even under the cases allowing similar evidence, the district court did not abuse 

its discretion by excluding it in this case. Boyd based his argument for the 

evidence on the fact that he had played professional football decades earlier 

and on what his lawyer observed in 2013. But the issue was Boyd’s mens rea

in 2007. In the years before and after 2007, Boyd was an independent consultant at Pinnacle Partners working to obtain regulatory approvals for large realestate development projects. There was no evidence that any mental-health 

professional, physician, family member, or colleague had raised concerns about 

Boyd’s cognitive abilities or suggested that any cognitive defects impaired his 

ability to perform his job in those years. We find no abuse of discretion in 

denying the requests for the appointment and funding of a neuropsychologist 

to examine Boyd.

B. Evidence of Other Tax Filings

Boyd challenges the district court’s admission of his tax transcripts from 

1990 to 2011 and his tax returns from 2003 and 2007 to 2011. A district court’s 

evidentiary rulings are reviewed under an abuse-of-discretion standard. 

United States v. Jackson, 636 F.3d 687, 692 (5th Cir. 2011). Even if the district 

7

 Case: 14-50163 Document: 00512863040 Page: 7 Date Filed: 12/09/2014
No. 14-50163

court erred in admitting the evidence, we look to see whether harm resulted. 

Id. 

The documents at issue were relevant to whether Boyd willfully violated 

the law, that is, whether Boyd believed, in good faith, that only those working 

for the federal government were subject to federal income taxes. Evidence of 

willfulness includes a defendant’s history of previously filing accurate tax returns and his receipt of warning notices from the IRS. United States v. Shivers, 

788 F.2d 1046, 1048–49 (5th Cir. 1986).

The tax transcripts and tax return from the years before 2007 showed 

that when Boyd’s taxes were withheld, as in tax years 1994 to 2001, he complied with his tax obligations. When his taxes were not withheld, as in tax 

years 2002 and 2003, he delayed filing his returns. This evidence was relevant 

both to Boyd’s knowledge and understanding of his tax obligations, as well as 

to his financial condition when he was not subject to withholding and his motivation to at least delay filing his returns and paying his taxes. 

The transcripts and returns from the years after 2007 reflected that 

Boyd continued to file returns filled with zeroes, even after the IRS warned

him that his filings were based on frivolous legal positions. These documents 

were admitted to show that even after Boyd was informed of his tax obligations

and of the absence of any basis to avoid them, he continued to file false tax 

returns. On one level, the returns showed that Boyd was consistent in his 

professed good-faith belief that filing returns showing no income was lawful. 

On another level, the returns evidenced Boyd’s intent to violate the law by 

showing that he continued to file no-income returns after learning that there

was no basis to do so. The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting these documents.

8

 Case: 14-50163 Document: 00512863040 Page: 8 Date Filed: 12/09/2014
No. 14-50163

C. Sufficiency of the Evidence

Boyd argues that the district court erred in denying his Rule 29 motion 

for acquittal because the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. 

We review the denial of his motion for acquittal de novo, asking whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, a rational jury could 

have found the essential elements of the offense charged beyond a reasonable 

doubt. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); United States v. Miller, 588 F.3d 897, 907 (5th Cir. 2009).

Proving a § 7206(1) violation requires the government to prove that the 

defendant: (1) made and signed a materially false federal income tax return; 

(2) submitted a written declaration stating under penalties of perjury that the 

return was true and correct; (3) did not believe that the return was true and 

correct when he signed it; and (4) signed it willfully and with the specific intent 

to violate the law. United States v. Bishop, 264 F.3d 535, 552 (5th Cir. 2001). 

“Willfulness . . . requires the Government to prove that the law imposed a duty 

on the defendant, that the defendant knew of this duty, and that he voluntarily 

and intentionally violated that duty.” Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192, 

201 (1991). 

The evidence showed that Boyd had declared his income and paid taxes 

for 14 years before filing the returns charged in the indictment. Before Boyd 

read Cracking the Code, he had hired an accountant to prepare his 2004 tax 

return and, in April 2006, paid the account for that work. Instead of filing the

return the accountant prepared and sent him, Boyd delayed until October

2007, when he completed and filed his own returns for 2004, 2005, and 2006 

showing zero income and zero taxes due. Boyd had received a 1099 form reporting his taxable income for each of the three years. There was ample evidence that Boyd knew he had a duty to report his income accurately and pay 

taxes, as he had done for 14 years and as his tax-return preparer had done for 

9

 Case: 14-50163 Document: 00512863040 Page: 9 Date Filed: 12/09/2014
No. 14-50163

him for tax year 2004; that he had no good-faith belief that he was suddenly 

no longer subject to federal income tax laws; and that he willfully violated the 

law by filing returns showing no income and no tax liability. See Cheek, 498 

U.S. at 201; United States v. Simkanin, 420 F.3d 397, 410 (5th Cir. 2005). The 

district court did not err in denying the motion for acquittal.

D. Jury Instructions

Boyd did not object to the jury instructions at trial. He now argues that 

they did not sufficiently explain that the jury had to find that he willfully

signed a false tax return to convict him. We review this claim for plain error. 

See United States v. Martin, 332 F.3d 827, 834 (5th Cir. 2003).

“Plain error exists if (1) there was error; (2) the error was clear and obvious; and (3) the error affected a substantial right.” United States v. Burns, 

526 F.3d 852, 858 (5th Cir. 2008). An error is clear and obvious if its existence 

cannot be reasonably debated. See United States v. Bohuchot, 625 F.3d 892, 

897 (5th Cir. 2010). Generally, an error affects a defendant’s substantial rights 

“if there is a reasonable probability that the result of the proceedings would 

have been different but for the error.” United States v. Montes-Salas, 669 F.3d 

240, 247 (5th Cir. 2012). Even when those conditions are satisfied, we have 

discretion to correct the forfeited error only if it seriously affects the fairness, 

integrity, or public reputation of court proceedings. Puckett v. United States, 

556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009).

The district court instructed the jury that to convict, it had to find “[t]hat 

the defendant made the statement willfully, that is, with intent to violate a 

known legal duty.” ROA 402. The instructions defined “willfully” as acting 

“intentionally — not by accident or mistake — with knowledge his conduct violated the law.” ROA 403. This instruction was consistent with the Supreme 

10

 Case: 14-50163 Document: 00512863040 Page: 10 Date Filed: 12/09/2014
No. 14-50163

Court’s definition of willfulness in the context of a tax-law violation as “a voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty.” Cheek, 498 U.S. at 200

(citing United States v. Pomponio, 429 U.S. 10, 12 (1976)). We find no error.

E. Prosecutorial and Judicial Misconduct

Boyd claims that both the prosecutor and the judge made prejudicial 

comments that deprived him of a fair trial. Because Boyd did not contemporaneously object, we again review for plain error. See United States v. Mares, 

402 F.3d 511, 515 (5th Cir. 2005). 

During closing, the prosecutor argued that Boyd did not believe in good 

faith that the theory he read in Cracking the Code was legally sound. The 

prosecutor stated that the theory was “wrong,” “absurd,” “one of the most preposterous things I’ve ever heard in my life,” and “one of the dumbest things I 

have ever heard.” ROA 1055–62. 

While there is “wide latitude” in making closing arguments, United 

States v. Thompson, 482 F.3d 781, 785 (5th Cir. 2007) (quotation marks and 

citation omitted), they are limited to “properly admitted evidence and any reasonable inferences or conclusions that can be drawn from that evidence,” 

United States v. McCann, 613 F.3d 486, 495 (5th Cir. 2010) (quotation marks 

and citation omitted). A prosecutor “may not express his personal opinion on 

the merits of the case or the credibility of witnesses,” including the defendant. 

United States v. Alaniz, 726 F.3d 586, 616 (5th Cir. 2013) (quoting United 

States v. Gallardo-Trapero, 185 F.3d 307, 320 (5th Cir. 1999)).

A reviewing court considers a prosecutor’s closing argument as a whole 

and in the context of the trial. Thompson, 482 F.3d at 785. Recognizing that 

closing argument is just that — argument — we allow prosecutors to use expressive language and “a bit of oratory and hyperbole” in arguments, id. at 786, 

and we generally place statements characterizing a defendant’s positions or 

11

 Case: 14-50163 Document: 00512863040 Page: 11 Date Filed: 12/09/2014
No. 14-50163

arguments as “ridiculous, absurd, and insulting” in this category. United 

States v. Bush, 451 F. App’x 445, 451 (5th Cir. 2011) (unpublished). 

Because the prosecutor also offered his personal opinion that the theory 

Boyd claimed to believe was “one of the most preposterous things I’ve ever 

heard in my life,” and “one of the dumbest things I have ever heard,” we consider whether these statements affected Boyd’s substantial rights. To do so, 

we consider three factors: (1) the magnitude of the statement’s prejudice, (2) 

the effect of any cautionary instructions given, and (3) the strength of the inculpatory evidence supporting the conviction. United States v. Aguilar, 645 

F.3d 319, 325 (5th Cir. 2011).

The contested statements were at most weakly prejudicial. The unreasonableness of Boyd’s theory was supported by the theory itself, as well as by 

the witness testimony and Boyd’s prior recognition of his duty to pay taxes. 

Viewing the isolated statements in the context of the overall argument, it is 

clear that the prosecutor argued only that Boyd, an educated professional, did 

not subjectively believe, in good faith, the objectively unreasonable theories 

espoused in Cracking the Code. And viewed in the context of the strong evidence of guilt presented in the trial, these brief statements in closing argument 

did not affect Boyd’s substantial rights. See United States v. Delgado, 672 F.3d 

320, 337 (5th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 525 (2012). 

Nor do we find plain error in the district court’s statements, made outside the jury’s presence, that Boyd’s tax theory was “the most absurd theory of 

all the theories I’ve tried in 20 years,” and “just malarkey.” ROA 470, 472. The 

jury did not hear these comments, and they provide no basis for reversal. 

Boyd also challenges two of the district judge’s statements made in front 

of the jury. During Boyd’s testimony, counsel asked him to “explain to the jury 

why you think you’re here today.” ROA 963. When the prosecutor objected, 

the court interjected, “[b]ecause he’s indicted and arrested and brought here 

12

 Case: 14-50163 Document: 00512863040 Page: 12 Date Filed: 12/09/2014
No. 14-50163

under the law.” Id. During opening argument, the district court reminded 

defense counsel to refer to her client by his last name, not as “Greg,” “Shorty,” 

or “Butch.” ROA 553. 

The judge’s first comment was an accurate statement of the reason for 

Boyd’s presence, made in response to an irrelevant question by Boyd’s counsel

that drew an objection. The second comment reiterated the judge’s instructions to all counsel to maintain an appropriate level of formality, instructions 

that defense counsel found difficult to follow. The jury instructions included a 

reminder to the jury that “[n]o matter what I do or say up here, don’t think I 

have any opinion one way or the other on this case. That is your job.” ROA 

537. These comments present no reversible error. See United States v. MunozRomo, 947 F.2d 170, 180 (5th Cir. 1991), rev’d on other grounds, 506 U.S. 802 

(1992); United States v. Davis, 752 F.2d 963, 975 (5th Cir. 1985).

F. Jury Note 3

The district court told the jury when they started deliberating that they 

would work from 8:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. At the end of the third day of deliberations, the jury sent a note at around “5pm” indicating that they were “still 

working” but that “[i]f we could stay past 6 I think we would get there. Otherwise we should come back in the morning.” ROA 1221. The district court did 

not address the note on the record. At “4:58 p.m.,” the court responded with a 

note telling the jury to “[t]ry to get a verdict by 6pm — if not you will need to 

return tomorrow morning.” ROA 1221. The jury was able to reach a verdict 

before 6:00 p.m. 

Boyd claims that the district court erred by not reading the note into the 

record and holding an on-the-record conference to discuss the response with 

counsel. We ordinarily review challenges to a district court’s responses to jury 

notes for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Daniels, 281 F.3d 168, 183–

13

 Case: 14-50163 Document: 00512863040 Page: 13 Date Filed: 12/09/2014
No. 14-50163

84 (5th Cir. 2002). Because Boyd did not object to how the district court handled the response, including in his motion for acquittal, our review is for plain 

error. See id.

A defendant generally has the right to receive notice when the court receives a jury note and to be given an opportunity to be heard on the response. 

See United States v. Bieganowski, 313 F.3d 264, 293 (5th Cir. 2002). If a court 

responds to a question on a ministerial matter such as scheduling without consulting counsel, however, there is generally no harm to the defendant’s substantial rights. See United States v. Ceja, 387 F. App’x 441, 443 (5th Cir. 2010)

(unpublished) (denying the appellant’s request to supplement the record on 

appeal with jury notes about requests for lunch and a smoke break because, 

even if the defendant was not consulted, the notes were “immaterial”). In this 

case, the district court’s response told the jury that the previously announced 

schedule continued to apply. We find no abuse of discretion, much less plain 

error.

G. Sentencing

Boyd appeals his within-Guidelines 33-month sentence as procedurally 

and substantively unreasonable. Boyd did not contemporaneously object, and 

our review is again for plain error. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 

564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391–

92 (5th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 554 U.S. 921 (2008).

Boyd argues that his sentence was unwarrantedly disparate from the 

sentences of other defendants based on a survey he compiled and presented to 

the district court of sentences in what he asserts were similar tax cases across 

the country. The court, of course, had little information about the defendants 

in Boyd’s survey, who were generally sentenced to serve between 6 and 24 

months. The district court’s within-Guidelines 33-month sentence was presumptively reasonable and was sufficiently explained. We find neither abuse 

14

 Case: 14-50163 Document: 00512863040 Page: 14 Date Filed: 12/09/2014
No. 14-50163

of discretion nor plain error in the district court’s decision not to sentence in

the range Boyd’s survey suggested. 

H. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Finally, Boyd argues that his chosen trial counsel was constitutionally 

ineffective. Claims of constitutionally ineffective counsel generally should not 

be raised on direct appeal unless they were presented to the trial court. See 

United States v. Aguilar, 503 F.3d 431, 436 (5th Cir. 2007). We see no reason 

for a different approach here. 

AFFIRMED. 

15

 Case: 14-50163 Document: 00512863040 Page: 15 Date Filed: 12/09/2014