JOSEPH J. KARASZEWSKI, Assistant United
States Attorney (KAREN ODDO, Law Clerk,
on the brief), for William J. Hochul,
Jr., United States Attorney for the
Western District of New York, Buffalo,
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District
Court for the Western District of New York (Skretny, J.).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED
that the judgment of the district court be
in part and
in part, and the case
for further proceedings.
appeals from a
judgment of conviction entered on August 7, 2009. Pursuant
to a plea agreement, Boyd
pled guilty to criminal copyright19infringement and to filing a false tax return, in violation20of 18 U.S.C. § 2319(b)(1), 17 U.S.C. § 506(a)(1)(A), and 2621U.S.C. § 7206(1). He was sentenced to 46 months of22incarceration, three years’ supervised release, and was23ordered to pay over $2 million in restitution.
the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the
procedural history, and the issues presented for review.
Boyd argues that his trial counsel’s performance was
constitutionally ineffective because Boyd was not informed
of relevant statutes of limitations, which circumscribed the
conduct for which he could be charged. When an ineffective
assistance claim is raised on direct appeal, we have three
options: “(1) decline to hear the claim, permitting the
appellant to raise the issue as part of a subsequent [28
U.S.C.] § 2255 petition; (2) remand the claim to the
district court for necessary fact-finding; or (3) decide the
claim on the record before us.” United States v. Hasan, 586
F.3d 161, 170 (2d Cir. 2009) (brackets in original).
“[I]n38most cases [a habeas claim] is preferable to direct appeal39for deciding claims of ineffective-assistance.” Massaro v.40United States, 538 U.S. 500, 504-05 (2003). However, we41have addressed ineffective assistance claims on direct42appeal when their resolution is “beyond any doubt” or to do43so is “in the interest of justice.” United States v. Matos,44905 F.2d 30, 32 (2d Cir. 1990).45