14

‐ 1976

‐ cr (L)

United States v. Lisi

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT.

CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007 IS

PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE

PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A

SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY

MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC

DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING

TO 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 for the Second 1

Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley 2

Square, in the City of New York, on the 20 th day of December, two thousand 3

seventeen. 4

5

PRESENT: GERARD E. LYNCH, 6

RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 7

Circuit Judges

, 8

CHRISTINA REISS, 9

Chief District Judge .* 10

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ 11

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 12

13 Appellee

, 14

15

v. Nos. 14

‐ 1976

‐ cr, 14

‐ 2164

‐ cr 16

17

BRANDON LISI, 18

19

Defendant

‐ Appellant. ** 20

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐ 21

22

* Chief Judge Christina Reiss, of the United States District Court for the District of

Vermont, sitting by designation.

** The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the official caption as set forth above.2 FOR APPELLANT: B RUCE R OBERT B RYAN

, Syracuse, NY. 1

2

FOR APPELLEE: A NNA M. S KOTKO (Michael D. 3

Lockard, on the brief ), Assistant 4

United States Attorneys, for Joon H. 5

Kim, Acting United States Attorney 6

for the Southern District of New 7

York, New York, NY. 8

9

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the 10

Southern District of New York (Naomi Reice Buchwald, Judge ). 11

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, 12

AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED in part and 13

the appeal is DISMISSED in part. 14

Brandon Lisi appeals from a judgment of the District Court (Buchwald, J.) 15

sentencing him principally to a term of 78 months’ imprisonment after denying 16

his motion to vacate his guilty plea. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 17

facts and record of the prior proceedings, to which we refer only as necessary to 18

explain our decision to affirm in part and dismiss in part. 19

We affirm the District Court’s holding that Lisi failed to raise a significant 20

question as to “the voluntary and intelligent nature of [his] decision to plead 21

guilty.” United States v. Arteca, 411 F.3d 315, 320 (2d Cir. 2015). The unsworn 22

statement of David Touger, Esq., who replaced Randy Zelin, Esq. as Lisi’s counsel 233 after the guilty plea, fails to show that Zelin had an actual or per se conflict of 1

interest that rendered the guilty plea involuntary. Even after the Government 2

stressed that Touger had not provided an affidavit to support his vague 3

allegations of conflict of interest, Touger failed to address the deficiency. 4

Second, our review of the record, including the Government’s explicit 5

representation prior to Lisi’s plea that its “commitment” to meet with Lisi’s 6

counsel in advance of any new charging decisions was not part of Lisi’s 7

agreement to plead guilty, persuades us that the Government’s expression of such 8

a commitment did not “induce” Lisi’s guilty plea. Finally, we conclude that 9

Zelin’s Sentencing Guidelines advice to Lisi was not incorrect, see U.S.S.G. 10

§ 2B1.1, cmt. n.3(E), and that in any event Lisi has not demonstrated that Zelin’s 11

advice, even if inaccurate, affected his decision to plead guilty. 1 Although the 12

better practice may be to hold a hearing, the District Court acted within its 13

discretion in denying Lisi’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea and his request for 14

1 Lisi also argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel from Touger in

connection with the motion to withdraw his guilty plea, because Touger failed to submit

evidence that he was prejudiced by ineffective assistance on the part of Zelin. But any

such claim would depend on the existence of such evidence, none of which appears in

the present record. Accordingly, any such claim would have to be made by a petition

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Billy

‐ Eko v. United States, 8 F.3d 111, 114 (2d Cir.

1993) (holding that “ineffective assistance claims are appropriately brought in § 2255

petitions

. . . because resolution of such claims often requires consideration of matters

outside the record on direct appeal”).4 an evidentiary hearing on the ground that “counsel’s contentions conflict with the 1

history of this case,” and were in part conclusory. Special App’x 28; see id. at 26; 2

United States v. Gonzalez, 647 F.3d 41, 57 (2d Cir. 2011). 3

With respect to Lisi’s challenges to his sentence, we dismiss that portion of 4

his appeal as barred by a valid appellate waiver. See United States v. Arevalo, 5

628 F.3d 93, 98 (2d Cir. 2010). In his plea agreement, Lisi agreed in writing not to 6

challenge any term of imprisonment less than 97 months or any forfeiture or 7

restitution order of $7 million or less. At his plea hearing, Lisi acknowledged 8

that he understood the terms of the plea agreement, including the appellate 9

waiver. Lisi’s term of imprisonment, amount of restitution, and amount of 10

forfeiture are within the range that he agreed not to challenge on appeal. As for 11

Lisi’s argument that the appeal waiver is unenforceable, we review this 12

unpreserved challenge for plain error, see United States v. Cook, 722 F.3d 477, 479 13

(2d Cir. 2013), and conclude that none of the “very circumscribed” exceptions to 14

the validity of an appeal waiver applies, see United States v. Gomez

‐ Perez, 215 15

F.3d 315, 319 (2d Cir. 2000). 16

We have considered Lisi’s remaining arguments and conclude that they are 17

without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District Court is 185 AFFIRMED in part and the appeal is DISMISSED in part. 1

FOR THE COURT: 2

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court 3