US v. Kamran Rezapour

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:13-cr-00215-FDW-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999819350]. [15-4236]

Appeal: 15-4236

Doc: 60

Filed: 05/11/2016

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4236

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KAMRAN REZAPOUR,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Frank D. Whitney,
Chief District Judge. (3:13-cr-00215-FDW-1)

Submitted:

April 28, 2016

Decided:

May 11, 2016

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George J.F. Werner, Ybor City, Florida, for Appellant.
Jill
Westmoreland Rose, United States Attorney, Amy E. Ray, Assistant
United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4236

Doc: 60

Filed: 05/11/2016

Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Kamran Rezapour waived indictment and pled guilty to one
count of wire fraud and two counts of selling misbranded drugs.
The

district

court

imprisonment.
erred

in

sentenced

Rezapour

to

108

months’

On appeal, Rezapour argues the district court

accepting

insufficient

to

his

plea

support

his

counsel was ineffective.

because
wire

the

fraud

factual

basis

conviction,

was

and

that

We affirm.

Because Rezapour did not seek to withdraw his guilty plea,
we review the sufficiency of the factual basis of the plea for
plain error.

See United States v. Sanya, 774 F.3d 812, 815 (4th

Cir. 2014).

“Thus, we may reverse only on a finding that (1)

there

was

error,

substantial
fairness,

(2)

rights,

that

and

integrity,

proceedings.”

was

(4)

or

plain,

that

public

(3)

seriously

that

affected

affected

reputation

of

the

judicial

United States v. Moore, 810 F.3d 932, 939 (4th

Cir. 2016) (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted).
The requirement that a plea be supported by a factual basis
“ensures

that

the

court

make

clear

exactly

what

a

defendant

admits to, and whether those admissions are factually sufficient
to constitute the alleged crime.”

United States v. Moussaoui,

591 F.3d 263, 299-300 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting United States v.
DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 120 (4th Cir. 1991)).

“The trial court

has wide discretion when determining whether a factual basis
2

Appeal: 15-4236

Doc: 60

Filed: 05/11/2016

Pg: 3 of 5

exists” and “need only be subjectively satisfied that there is a
sufficient factual basis for a conclusion that the defendant
committed all of the elements of the offense.”

Id. at 300

(alterations and internal quotation marks omitted).
“[T]o convict a person of . . . wire fraud, the government
must show that the defendant (1) devised or intended to devise a
scheme

to

defraud

and

(2)

used

furtherance of the scheme.”

that

the

wire

communications

in

United States v. Wynn, 684 F.3d

473, 477 (4th Cir. 2012).
requires

. . .

The first element of this offense

defendant

possess

“the

specific

intent

to

deprive one of something of value through a misrepresentation or
other

similar

dishonest

misrepresentation
“ha[ve] a

must

natural

method.”

also

tendency

influencing its target.”

be
to

Id.

material,
influence,

at
that

or

478.
is,

[be]

The
it

must

capable

of

Id. at 479 (internal quotation marks

omitted).
At the plea hearing, the Government explained the elements
of wire fraud, and Rezapour testified that he understood them
and

that

he

was

guilty

of

this

offense.

Rezapour

also

stipulated to a factual basis that contained facts indicating
that

he

used

the

internet

to

induce

potential

customers

to

purchase his products by misrepresenting those products as “all
natural”

and

medication.

free

from

Although

the

side

Rezapour
3

effects
now

of

argues

prescription
that

these

Appeal: 15-4236

Doc: 60

Filed: 05/11/2016

Pg: 4 of 5

misrepresentations were not material, this claim is belied by
the factual stipulation accompanying his plea, which indicates
that his advertising touted the supposed “all natural” nature of
his products as a major reason to purchase them rather than
their

prescription

counterparts.

The

factual

basis

also

described the deceptive means by which Rezapour and his supplier
smuggled these ingredients into the United States, indicating
that

Rezapour

conclude

was
the

that

otherwise,

in

aware

district

finding

of

that

their

nature.

court

did

the

Accordingly,

not

err,

factual

plainly

basis

we
or

adequately

supported Rezapour’s plea. *
Rezapour

also

argues

that

counsel

was

ineffective

for

failing to conduct an adequate investigation and by giving him
erroneous

advice

regarding

his

guilty

plea.

Unless

an

attorney’s ineffectiveness conclusively appears on the face of
the

record,

addressed

on

ineffective
direct

assistance

appeal.

claims

Instead,

*

such

are

not

claims

generally
should

be

To the extent Rezapour argues that the district court was
required to weigh the underlying evidence rather than accept his
admissions as true, this argument is meritless. See United
States v. Carr, 271 F.3d 172, 178-79 n.6 (4th Cir. 2001) (“The
court need not satisfy itself that a jury would find the
defendant guilty, or even that defendant is guilty by a
preponderance of the evidence.
The district court must assure
itself simply that the conduct to which the defendant admits is
in fact an offense under the statutory provision under which he
is pleading guilty.” (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted)).

4

Appeal: 15-4236

Doc: 60

Filed: 05/11/2016

Pg: 5 of 5

raised in a motion brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012),
in order to permit sufficient development of the record.

United

States v. Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 216 n.1 (4th Cir. 2010).

The

present record does not indicate that counsel was ineffective.
Accordingly, we conclude that Rezapour’s ineffective assistance
claims should be raised, if at all, in a § 2255 motion.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
We

dispense

contentions

with
are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the

facts

and

the

materials

legal
before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

5