US v. Ksenia Stekolstsikova, No. 09-5080 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-5080 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KSENIA STEKOLSTSIKOVA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:09-cr-00003-MSD-TEM-18) Submitted: July 14, 2010 Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge. DAVIS, Decided: Circuit Judges, and July 21, 2010 HAMILTON, Senior Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paul G. Watson, IV, PAUL G. WATSON, IV, P.C., Eastville, Virginia, for Appellant. Stephen Westley Haynie, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ksenia Stekolstsikova appeals from her conviction and twenty-month sentence entered pursuant to her guilty plea to conspiracy to defraud the United States. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), concluding that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether the sentence was unreasonably long. pro se supplemental presentence report improperly brief, ( PSR ) considered Stekolstsikova contained her asserts errors, co-conspirators that In her that the the court sentences when choosing the appropriate sentence, and that her attorney was ineffective during the sentencing hearing. The Government filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the basis of the appellate waiver contained in Stekolstsikova s plea agreement. A defendant may waive the waiver is knowing and intelligent. right to appeal if that United States v. Poindexter, 492 F.3d 263, 270 (4th Cir. 2007). On appeal, Stekolstsikova does not challenge the validity of her appellate waiver. She argues by the supports the waiver. only Our that certain claims are independent review of not the foreclosed record conclusion that Stekolstsikova voluntarily and knowingly waived her right to appeal as part of the decision to plead guilty rather than go to trial. Thus, we conclude that the waiver is valid and enforceable. 2 However, as noted by Stekolstsikova, waiver does not waive all appellate claims. even a valid Specifically, a valid appeal waiver does not preclude a challenge to a sentence on the ground that it exceeds the statutory maximum or is based on a constitutionally impermissible factor such as race, arises from the denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea based on ineffective assistance of counsel, or relates to claims concerning a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel in proceedings following the guilty plea. United Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 151 (4th Cir. 2005). States v. The only claim raised by Stekolstsikova that falls outside the scope of her appellate waiver is her assertion that counsel was ineffective during under her sentencing Anders with hearing. reviewing In the addition, record for we are unwaived charged error. Thus, we grant the Government s motion to dismiss in part and dismiss the claim raised by counsel, as well as the remaining claims in Stekolstsikova s pro se brief. We deny the motion to dismiss with regard to Stekolstsikova s ineffective assistance claim, as well as any unwaived claims discovered during our Anders review. In her claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at the sentencing hearing, Stekolstsikova asserts that her counsel withdrew objections to the PSR without her consent. She lists certain alleged factual errors in the PSR, but she fails to show 3 how pursuing these objections would have altered her Guidelines range or her actual sentence. In any event, claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are generally not cognizable on direct appeal. Cir. 1997). United States v. King, 119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th Rather, to allow for adequate development of the record, a defendant must bring her claim in a 28 U.S.C.A. ยง 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion. See id. An exception exists when the record conclusively establishes ineffective assistance. United States v. Richardson, 195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir. 1999). Our review of the record establish ineffective assistance. fails to conclusively Thus, Stekolstsikova s claim is not cognizable on direct appeal. Moreover, our review of the record did not disclose any unwaived, meritorious claims for review. Accordingly, we affirm Stekolstsikova s sentence. We deny Stekolstsikova s motion to substitute counsel. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of her right to petition United States for further review. the Supreme Court of the If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 4 adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART 5
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
