- 13 -
and reducing the sentence. The District Court concluded that
petitioners otherwise “suffered no prejudice” from Mr. Spirtos’s
representation of them. The District Court did not throw out the
plea agreement or otherwise vacate Mr. Zapara’s sentence. As
explained in more detail infra, the erroneous loss calculation is
not reflected in the Form 4549-CG. Accordingly, we are not
persuaded that any ineffective assistance of counsel on Mr.
Spirtos’s part prejudiced petitioners, much less amounted to
duress or coercion, with respect to their signing the Form 4549-
CG.
Petitioners also allege that, at the time they signed the
Form 4549-CG, Mr. Spirtos’s “conduct was self serving, he had an
irreconcilable conflict between his own interests and the
interests of his client * * * as he was under investigation from
the Internal Revenue [Service] and the United States Attorney’s
Office at the time he was representing the Petitioners”. In
support of this allegation, petitioners rely on the declaration
of Mr. Mather, which is attached to Mr. Zapara’s motion to
vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence, filed in the District
Court in September 2001. In that declaration, Mr. Mather
declared: “Mr. Scharf [petitioners’ attorney] asked [Mr. Spirtos
and Mrs. Spirtos] if, during their dealings with the government
on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Zapara, there was an investigation by
the same agent and prosecutor concerning Mr. and Mrs. Spirtos.
Mrs. Spirtos agreed that there was.” Petitioners also rely on
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011