Case Name: UNITED STATES of America v. Denis SHUSTERMAN, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-12-14
Citations: 258 F. App'x 403
Docket Number: No. 06-4196
Parties: UNITED STATES of America v. Denis SHUSTERMAN, Appellant.
Judges: BEFORE: RENDELL and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges, and IRENAS, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 258
Pages: 403–404

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America v. Denis SHUSTERMAN, Appellant.
No. 06-4196.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) Dec. 10, 2007.
Filed: Dec. 14, 2007.
Robert A. Zauzmer, Office of United States Attorney, Philadelphia, PA, for United States of America.
Ari R. Karpf, Karpf, Karpf & Virant, Bensalem, PA, for Appellant.
BEFORE: RENDELL and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges, and IRENAS, District Judge.
Hon. Joseph E. Irenas, Senior District Judge for the District of New Jersey, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
STAPLETON, Circuit Judge:
Appellant Denis Shusterman pled guilty on the twelfth day of his jury trial to all the charges against him. Two months later, as his sentencing approached, he moved to withdraw his guilty pleas. After a two-day evidentiary hearing, the District Court denied this motion. United States v. Shusterman, 459 F.Supp.2d 357 (E.D.Pa.2006). This appeal followed.
Before us, Shusterman contends (1) that his pleas were not voluntarily and knowingly entered; (2) that his trial counsel was "constitutionally defective;" and (3) that his prosecutor committed "misconduct." After consideration of all of Shusterman's arguments, we conclude that his convictions must stand.
For the reasons set forth in the District Court's thorough and careful opinion, it did not abuse its discretion by refusing to allow the withdrawal of Shusterman's pleas.
In his brief before us, Shusterman appears to contend that ineffective assistance of counsel at trial entitles him to a new trial without reference to whether it rendered his pleas involuntary or unknowing. If so, he waived this argument when he pled guilty. United States v. Panarella, 277 F.3d 678 (3d Cir.2002). In any event, as explained at length in the District Court's opinion, Shusterman has not shown ineffective assistance of counsel at trial.
Shusterman's claims of prosecutorial misconduct at trial are also barred by his guilty pleas. Washington v. Sobina, 475 F.3d 162 (3d Cir.2007).
The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.