United States of America v. Juan Guadarrama

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 01-3453
_________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
JUAN GUADARRAMA, Appellant
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the District of New Jersey
(D.C. No. 00-cr-00663)
District Judge: Honorable Stephen M. Orlofsky
_______________________________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
October 15, 2002
Before: BECKER, Chief Judge, ROTH and ROSENN,
Circuit Judges.
(Filed: November 27, 2002 )
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
BECKER, Chief Judge.
Juan Guadarrama appeals from a judgment of the District Court in a criminal case
entered pursuant to a plea of guilty to an indictment charging him with making
approximately $940 in counterfeit United States currency and with possession of
approximately 980 counterfeit alien registration cards. Guadarrama presses two arguments
on this appeal.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
First, he submits that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance during his
sentencing hearing by failing to make a motion for downward departure based on his status
as an illegal alien and the possibility that he might consent to a voluntary deportation. No
hearing was ever held on this issue. Accordingly, Guadarrama is not entitled to raise this
issue on direct appeal. As we have made clear in a number of cases, see, e.g. United States
v. Haywood, 155 F.3d 674, 678 (3d Cir. 1998) we will not review an ineffective assistance
claim on direct appeal unless there is a sufficient record to dispose of the claim. More
importantly, we have consistently held that the proper avenue for pursuing such claims is
through a collateral proceeding [under 28 U.S.C. § 2255] in which the factual basis for the
claim may be developed. Id.
Second, Guadarrama asserts that the District Court should not have imposed a two-
level sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice. The District Court ordered the
sentencing enhancement because it concluded that the government had proven, by clear and
convincing evidence, that Guadarrama had committed perjury at the suppression hearing,
since Guadarrama’s testimony was false, material and willful. As the District Court saw it,
the sentencing hearing basically presented “a swearing contest” between Guadarrama and
the four law enforcement officers who testified at the hearing. The Officers (and others)
said that Guadarrama clearly understood English; Guadarrama testified that he did not. The
District Court’s factual finding that Guadarrama committed perjury, which was based on its
decision to credit the testimony of four law enforcement officers over Guadarrama’s
testimony, was not clearly erroneous.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed. This is without prejudice to the
subsequent filing of a motion under § 2255 alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.
__________________________
TO THE CLERK:
Please file the foregoing Opinion.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Edward R. Becker
Chief Judge

-- 3 of 4 --

4

-- 4 of 4 --