United States v. Shusterman

Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
12-14-2007
USA v. Shusterman
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-4196
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Shusterman" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 61.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/61
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 06-4196
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
DENIS SHUSTERMAN,
Appellant
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Crim. Action No. 04-cr-00364)
District Judge: Hon. Legrome D. Davis
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
December 10, 2007
BEFORE: RENDELL and STAPLETON,
Circuit Judges, and IRENAS, District Judge*
(Opinion Filed: December 14, 2007)
* Hon. Joseph E. Irenas, Senior District Judge for the District of New Jersey, sitting by
designation.
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
2
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.
3