US v. Wilfredo Carranza

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:13-cr-00419-WO-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999772331].. [14-4632]

Appeal: 14-4632

Doc: 96

Filed: 03/11/2016

Pg: 1 of 6

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4632

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILFREDO ANTONIO ROMERO CARRANZA,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
William L. Osteen,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:13-cr-00419-WO-1)

Submitted:

October 20, 2015

Decided:

March 11, 2016

Before GREGORY and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles R. Brewer, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Kyle D. Pousson, Lisa B.
Boggs, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4632

Doc: 96

Filed: 03/11/2016

Pg: 2 of 6

PER CURIAM:
Wilfredo Antonio Romero Carranza, a citizen of El Salvador,
was convicted by a jury and sentenced to 84 months in prison for
unlawful re-entry of a felon, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326
(2012). 1

Carranza asserts that:

his

process

due

rights

when

(1) the district court violated
it

questioned

a

witness

about

whether he reviewed only Carranza’s A-file for an application
for permission to re-enter the United States, thereby allegedly
allowing another witness to tailor his testimony that both the
A-file

and

electronic

databases

were

checked;

(2)

defense

counsel rendered ineffective assistance when he failed to timely
review the presentence investigation report with Carranza, and
failed to prevent the presentation of testimony establishing an
element of an offense with which Carranza was charged; 2 and (3)

1

Carranza was also convicted — in a separate case and by a
separate jury — of charges related to the operation of a chop
shop.
United States v. Carranza, No. 1:13-cr-00230-WO-2
(M.D.N.C.,
PACER
No.
101).
A
consolidated
presentence
investigation report was prepared for the cases and Carranza was
sentenced in both cases at the same time, thereby resulting in a
single judgment.
Because an appeal from the district court’s
judgment as it pertains to the chop shop case is pending before
this court in a separate appeal, only the district court’s
judgment as it pertains to Carranza’s re-entry conviction is at
issue on this appeal.
2

It is well-established that ineffective assistance of
counsel claims may be addressed on direct appeal only if the
attorney’s ineffectiveness conclusively appears in the record.
United States v. Powell, 680 F.3d 350, 359 (4th Cir. 2012). We
have reviewed the record and have considered Carranza’s
(Continued)
2

Appeal: 14-4632

the

Doc: 96

district

Filed: 03/11/2016

court

erred

Pg: 3 of 6

when,

knowing

there

was

a

complete

breakdown in communications between Carranza and his attorney,
it failed to have new defense counsel appointed.

Finding no

error, we affirm.
We find that the district court’s inquiry into a particular
witness’s investigation did not result in reversible error, let
alone a violation of Carranza’s due process rights.
Fed.

R.

Evid.

614,

a

district

court

is

Pursuant to

permitted

to

call

witnesses on its own motion, and may examine any witness who
testifies at trial.

It is “settled beyond doubt that in a

federal court the judge has the right, and often an obligation,
to interrupt the presentations of counsel in order to clarify
misunderstandings or otherwise insure that the trial proceeds
efficiently and fairly.”

United States v. Morrow, 925 F.2d 779,

781 (4th Cir. 1991) (citation omitted).
Because issues of trial management are largely left to the
discretion
interference

of

the

claims

district
with

district court’s judgment.

a

court,

“measure

we
of

review
deference”

judicial
to

the

United States v. Smith, 452 F.3d

arguments and find that ineffective assistance does not
conclusively appear on the record.
Although we note that
ineffective assistance of counsel claims should generally be
raised by a habeas corpus motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012),
we intimate no view as to the validity or lack of validity of
such claims.
3

Appeal: 14-4632

Doc: 96

Filed: 03/11/2016

Pg: 4 of 6

323, 333 (4th Cir. 2006).

However, a district court must ensure

that

an

it

does

not

create

appearance

of

partiality

through

continued intervention or interruption on behalf of one of the
parties.

See United States v. Godwin, 272 F.3d 659, 677-78 (4th

Cir. 2001).

Ultimately, the district court must “never reach[]

the point at which it appears clear to the jury that the court
believes the accused is guilty,” or give “the appearance of bias
or

partiality

in

any

way

or

become[]

so

pervasive

in

his

interruptions and interrogations that he may appear to usurp the
role of either the prosecutor or the defendant’s counsel[.]”
United States v. Parodi, 703 F.2d 768, 775–76 (4th Cir. 1983)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district
court’s brief questioning of the witness, outside the jury’s
presence,

did

not

usurp

prosecutor

or

give

the

the

Government’s

appearance

of

role

as

impropriety.

Carranza’s
And

even

assuming, arguendo, that error occurred, we find that any error
did not affect Carranza’s substantial rights.

See United States

v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 81 (2004) (holding that to
affect substantial rights, an error must have a “substantial and
injurious

effect

or

influence

in

determining

the

verdict”)

(internal quotation marks and ellipses omitted).
We

also

reject

Carranza’s

argument

that

he

was

constructively denied the right to counsel based on an “obvious
4

Appeal: 14-4632

Doc: 96

Filed: 03/11/2016

Pg: 5 of 6

communications breakdown between defendant and his counsel[,]”
and discern no reversible error in the district court’s failure
to replace his attorney before sentencing.

We review a district

court’s ruling on a motion to substitute counsel for abuse of
discretion.

United States v. Reevey, 364 F.3d 151, 156 (4th

Cir. 2004).

To the extent that Carranza suggests that counsel’s

ineffectiveness amounted to the denial of his Sixth Amendment
right

to

assistance

of

counsel,

assignment of error de novo.

however,

we

review

his

United States v. DeTemple, 162

F.3d 279, 289 (4th Cir. 1998).
It

is

true

that

courts

have

previously

recognized

a

constructive denial of the right to counsel when, for instance,
a complete breakdown of attorney-client communication precluded
effective

representation,

see

Daniels

v.

Woodford,

428

F.3d

1181, 1197-98 (9th Cir. 2005), or an attorney completely failed
to

“subject

testing[.]”

the

prosecution’s

case

to

meaningful

adversarial

United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 659 (1984).

We nonetheless find that the record does not establish that the
district court abused its discretion when it failed to replace
Carranza’s

attorney

before

sentencing,

or

that

counsel’s

representation at sentencing amounted to the constructive denial
of the right to counsel.
Based
judgment as

on
it

the

foregoing,

pertains

to

we
Case
5

affirm
No.

the

district

court’s

1:13-cr-00419-WO-1.

We

Appeal: 14-4632

Doc: 96

dispense

with

contentions

are

Filed: 03/11/2016

oral

argument

adequately

Pg: 6 of 6

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

6