Buleishvili v. United States

Background

Giorgi Buleishvili pleaded guilty on January 31, 2017, to conspiracy to commit mail fraud, wire fraud, and health care fraud. On July 6, 2017, the court sentenced him to 34 months in prison and three years of supervised release. The court also ordered him to pay $13,795,268 in restitution.

Buleishvili later filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which allows a federal prisoner to ask the sentencing court to vacate, set aside, or correct a sentence on specified legal grounds. The court treated his earlier request to file a late appeal as a § 2255 motion after explaining that the appellate rules did not allow the late notice of appeal. He proceeded without counsel when he filed his submissions, but the court later appointed pro bono counsel. Appointed counsel told the court that the claims were contradicted by the record and foreclosed by the law. Buleishvili did not file an additional memorandum despite receiving extra time.

Claims and legal standard

Buleishvili alleged ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment. He claimed that his attorney failed to tell him that he had only a limited time to appeal, failed to advise him that his guilty plea and conviction would likely lead to deportation, and failed to present his objection to the restitution award.

To succeed on an ineffective-assistance claim, a petitioner must show both that counsel’s performance fell below professional standards and that the deficient performance caused prejudice. For a guilty-plea claim, prejudice requires a reasonable probability that the petitioner would have rejected the plea and gone to trial. For a sentencing claim, the petitioner must show that a different sentence probably would have resulted.

The court also explained that it did not need to hold an evidentiary hearing because the motion and case records conclusively showed that Buleishvili was not entitled to relief.

Court’s analysis

The court rejected the appeal-deadline claim. At sentencing, the court told Buleishvili that he had a right to appeal, subject to any valid waiver in his plea agreement, and that a notice of appeal had to be filed within 14 days of the judgment. Because he received that information directly from the court, the court found no reason to conclude that he would have filed a timely appeal if his lawyer had also explained the deadline.

The court rejected the immigration claim. Before accepting the guilty plea, the court told Buleishvili that he might be removed from the United States and that removal could be likely or mandatory in some circumstances. Buleishvili confirmed that he understood those possible consequences and that he had discussed them with his attorney, then pleaded guilty. The court therefore found no basis to conclude that he would have gone to trial if counsel had provided the advice he claimed was missing. The court also noted that a possible misunderstanding caused by the court describing deportation as likely rather than mandatory would not justify relief under controlling appellate precedent.

The court rejected the restitution claim. Buleishvili argued that his lawyer should have challenged the $13,795,268 award based on his limited finances and family expenses. The court held that economic hardship was not a legal ground for reducing the restitution award and noted that Buleishvili had agreed to pay restitution when he pleaded guilty.

Disposition

The court concluded that Buleishvili had not shown prejudice from any alleged attorney error and therefore could not establish ineffective assistance of counsel. Judge Ronnie Abrams denied the § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail the order to Buleishvili and close the case.