United States v. Leopoldo Valencia-Urrea ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 12-51191      Document: 00512461757         Page: 1    Date Filed: 12/05/2013
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    No. 12-51191
    Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    December 5, 2013
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    Plaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    LEOPOLDO VALENCIA-URREA,
    Defendant - Appellant
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Texas
    USDC No. 3:10-CR-973-3
    Before KING, BARKSDALE, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM: *
    Leopoldo Valencia-Urrea appeals his guilty-plea convictions and
    sentences for conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud, and conspiracy to
    commit money laundering. He claims he was denied his Sixth Amendment
    right to the effective assistance of counsel (IAC). In particular, he maintains
    counsel, inter alia, encouraged him to sign a plea agreement that provided
    little or no benefit to him and failed to file a written response to the
    * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
    CIR. R. 47.5.4.
    Case: 12-51191    Document: 00512461757      Page: 2   Date Filed: 12/05/2013
    No. 12-51191
    Government’s sentencing memorandum, which sought an increased sentence
    based on his post-plea conduct.
    Valencia did not raise his IAC claims in district court. “[T]he general
    rule in this circuit is that a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel cannot
    be resolved on direct appeal when the claim has not been raised before the
    district court since no opportunity existed to develop the record on the merits
    of the allegations.” United States v. Cantwell, 
    470 F.3d 1087
    , 1091 (5th Cir.
    2006) (alteration in original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
    Because “we cannot fairly evaluate the [IAC] claim[s] from the record”, we
    decline to consider them, without prejudice to his right to raise them in a
    subsequent proceeding, such as pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
    . United States v.
    Gulley, 
    526 F.3d 809
    , 821 (5th Cir. 2008).
    AFFIRMED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-51191

Filed Date: 1/20/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021