NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
File Name: 21a0334n.06
No. 20-1653
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED
Jul 13, 2021
) DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
)
Plaintiff-Appellee, )
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE
v. )
) UNITED STATES DISTRICT
) COURT FOR THE EASTERN
LASZLO CSIKI, ) DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Defendant-Appellant. )
Before: BATCHELDER, KETHLEDGE, and THAPAR, Circuit Judges.
KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. Laszlo Csiki appeals his conviction and sentence for
possession of equipment to make skimming devices and aggravated identity theft. We reject his
arguments and affirm.
I.
In April 2019, police in Dearborn, Michigan arrested Laszlo Csiki in connection with the
installation of skimming devices on local ATMs. When installed, those devices capture the card
number and PIN of every card entered into the ATM. The police recovered from Csiki and his co-
defendant approximately $161,000 in cash that had been withdrawn from ATMs using stolen card
numbers, approximately 500 gift or credit cards encoded with stolen numbers, and various
materials, components, and tools necessary to make skimming devices. A federal grand jury
indicted Csiki for one count of access device fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(1); one
count of possession of device-making equipment, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(4); and two
No. 20-1653, United States v. Csiki
counts of aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A. Csiki retained Loren
Dickstein as his lawyer.
Six months later, Csiki agreed to plead guilty to one count of possession of device-making
equipment and to one count of aggravated identity theft. In a written plea agreement, Csiki and
the government settled on a guidelines range of 24-30 months’ imprisonment for the possession
count and a minimum of 24 months’ for the identity-theft count, to be served consecutively. Csiki
waived his right to appeal his sentence “on any grounds” if his total sentence did not exceed
54 months’ imprisonment. But Csiki reserved the right to claim that his counsel was ineffective.
The district court held a hearing to consider the plea agreement. Csiki stated that no one
had coerced him to plead guilty and that Dickstein had prepared him for the plea. He also
acknowledged that, under the plea agreement, he could not appeal a sentence of 54 or fewer
months’ imprisonment. The court accepted the plea agreement and scheduled Csiki’s sentencing.
The Probation Office completed a presentence report, and Dickstein filed objections to that report
on Csiki’s behalf.
Before Csiki was sentenced, however, Dickstein filed a motion to withdraw as Csiki’s
lawyer. The court held a hearing at which it questioned Dickstein about the motion. Dickstein
said that Csiki had lost trust in him and wanted a different lawyer. Csiki agreed, telling the court
that Dickstein “should be replaced” and that another lawyer should be appointed for the duration
of the case. The court noted that a new lawyer would not change Csiki’s guilty plea or the PSR
objections filed by Dickstein. But the court granted the motion and appointed Sanford Plotkin as
Csiki’s new lawyer. The court then rescheduled Csiki’s sentencing hearing.
Before that hearing, Csiki filed pro se a handwritten “sentencing memorandum
supplement.” Csiki alleged that, due to Dickstein’s ineffectiveness, he had not entered the plea
2
No. 20-1653, United States v. Csiki
agreement voluntarily. According to Csiki, he had told Dickstein that he would not accept any
plea agreement containing consecutive sentences. But when Csiki’s brother died shortly
thereafter, Dickstein allegedly exploited Csiki’s “vulnerable state of mind” over his brother’s death
and presented Csiki with the plea agreement that he eventually signed, including the
recommendation for consecutive sentences. The court struck Csiki’s pro se filing, however,
because he was then represented by Plotkin. Plotkin made no attempt to set aside the plea
agreement on the grounds alleged in Csiki’s filing.
The COVID-19 pandemic began before Csiki’s sentencing hearing, and the courthouse was
closed for in-person proceedings. The court then scheduled Csiki’s sentencing to occur over
videoconference. The parties jointly requested that, at the beginning of the proceeding, the court
should first ensure Csiki’s consent to the virtual hearing.
Accordingly, the court asked at the beginning of the hearing whether Csiki had consented
to the virtual proceeding. Plotkin responded “Yes, he has. I discussed it with Mr. Csiki. He’s
consented.” Based on that representation, and without any statement from Csiki himself, the court
found that Csiki had consented to a hearing over videoconference. The court ultimately imposed
a total sentence of 54 months’ imprisonment.
This appeal followed.
II.
Csiki argues that his conviction should be reversed because Dickstein and Plotkin were
ineffective. Specifically, Csiki says that Dickstein “coerced” him into the plea agreement and that
Plotkin should have attempted to vacate the plea agreement because of that alleged coercion. Csiki
also asserts that Plotkin failed to obtain his consent to the virtual sentencing proceeding.
3
No. 20-1653, United States v. Csiki
A defendant generally may not raise ineffective-assistance claims for the first time on direct
appeal. See United States v. Martinez, 430 F.3d 317, 338 (6th Cir. 2005). Those claims instead
should be raised through a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition, because the district court is best suited to
develop any facts regarding the adequacy of a lawyer’s representation. See United States v.
Ferguson, 669 F.3d 756, 762 (6th Cir. 2012). Csiki contends that the record is adequately
developed for us to address his ineffective-assistance claim here. See, e.g., United States v. Hall,
200 F.3d 962, 965 (6th Cir. 2000).
But the record here includes none of Csiki’s communications with his lawyers. Nothing in
the record, for example, corroborates Csiki’s allegation that Dickstein coerced him to enter the
plea agreement. Meanwhile, Csiki denied under oath that anyone had forced or threatened him
into a guilty plea. And we “have no way of knowing” why Plotkin decided not to challenge the
plea agreement on the grounds of coercion or whether that decision was erroneous. Massaro v.
United States, 538 U.S. 500, 505 (2003). We decline to consider Csiki’s ineffective-assistance
claim here.
Csiki also argues that he never consented to conduct his sentencing by videoconference.
He further contends that the district court failed to find that he had consented. Csiki’s challenge
to the procedures used at his sentencing amounts to an appeal of the sentence itself. See, e.g.,
United States v. Garcia-Robles, 640 F.3d 159, 163 (6th Cir. 2011). We review de novo whether
the appellate waiver in his plea agreement precludes that challenge. See United States v. Griffin,
854 F.3d 911, 914 (6th Cir. 2012).
In the agreement here, Csiki waived the right to appeal his sentence “on any grounds” if
the sentence was not greater than 54 months’ imprisonment. That condition was undisputedly met.
And Csiki testified at his plea hearing both that he was not coerced to enter the plea agreement and
4
No. 20-1653, United States v. Csiki
that he could not appeal a sentence that was “54 months or less.” He offers no evidence to rebut
those assertions now. His argument here is therefore waived.
The district court’s judgment is affirmed.
5