Court Opinion

ID: 9407188
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-06 00:00:32.465624+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:36.033495
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-20508         Document: 00516809335             Page: 1      Date Filed: 07/05/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                     United States Court of Appeals
                                                                              Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 22-20508
                                     Summary Calendar
                                                                            FILED
                                                                         July 5, 2023
                                     ____________
                                                                       Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                Clerk

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Herbert Perry, Jr.,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Southern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 4:21-CR-118-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Barksdale, Higginson, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Herbert Perry, Jr., pleaded guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement
   to aiding and abetting the brandishing of a firearm during and in relation to a
   crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) and 2. He was
   sentenced to, inter alia, 132-months’ imprisonment and ordered, inter alia,
   to pay a $3,000 fine. He contends his trial counsel was ineffective because

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-20508      Document: 00516809335           Page: 2     Date Filed: 07/05/2023

                                     No. 22-20508

   he did not: timely file a notice of appeal (NOA); and object to the district
   court’s imposition of the fine.
          He contends he should be allowed an untimely appeal and concedes
   our court generally does not consider ineffective assistance of counsel claims
   on direct appeal, but he maintains we should consider his claim concerning
   the fine because it is not cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
          Perry knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal the
   conviction and sentence, including the fine; thus, the appeal waiver is valid
   and enforceable. See United States v. McKinney, 406 F.3d 744, 746 (5th Cir.
   2005). The Government has invoked the waiver in this court. Therefore, to
   the extent that Perry is challenging the fine directly, his claim is barred by the
   appeal waiver. See id.
          In the appeal waiver, however, Perry reserved the right to claim
   ineffective assistance of counsel. “Sixth Amendment claims of ineffective
   assistance of counsel should not be litigated on direct appeal, unless they
   were previously presented to the trial court.” United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d
   829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted).         This court will consider
   ineffective assistance claims on direct appeal “only in rare cases in which the
   record allows a reviewing court to fairly evaluate the merits of the claim”. Id.
   (citation omitted). We conclude the record is sufficiently developed for our
   considering Perry’s two claims.
          First, Perry’s NOA was required to be filed within 14 days from the
   “entry” of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i). For the purposes of
   Rule 4(b), judgement is entered “when it is entered on the criminal docket”.
   Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(6). Although Perry’s judgment of conviction was
   filed 12 September 2022, it was not entered on the docket until the following
   day, 13 September. Therefore, his 27 September 2022 NOA was timely filed,
   and he, therefore, fails to show counsel was ineffective on that basis.

                                           2
Case: 22-20508      Document: 00516809335          Page: 3    Date Filed: 07/05/2023

                                    No. 22-20508

          Next, assuming his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to
   the fine, Perry has not shown the requisite prejudice. See Strickland v.
   Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694, 697 (1984) (providing defendant must show
   reasonable probability outcome would be different absent counsel’s
   ineffectiveness). The record reflects that the district court considered the
   information in the presentence investigation report concerning Perry’s
   ability to pay a fine and determined he had the ability to pay a reduced fine of
   $3,000 in installments during his incarceration and after release. Perry has
   not identified any additional evidence his trial counsel could have presented
   to demonstrate that he was incapable of paying a fine. Therefore, he has not
   shown there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s failing to
   object, the district court would not have imposed the fine. See Strickland, 466
   U.S. at 694.
          AFFIRMED.

                                          3