United States v. Chambliss , 202 F. App'x 782 ( 2006 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 24, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-50031
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ORBIE DALE CHAMBLISS,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 7:05-CR-52-1
--------------------
Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Orbie Dale Chambliss appeals his convictions for conspiracy
to distribute 50 grams of methamphetamine and possession with
intent to distribute methamphetamine. He argues that his counsel
rendered ineffective assistance by failing to seek suppression of
inculpatory statements Chambliss made prior to his arrest.
A claim of ineffective assistance generally will not
be considered for the first time on direct appeal. United
States v. Lampazianie, 251 F.3d 519, 527 (5th Cir. 2001).
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 06-50031
-2-
“[I]neffective-assistance claims ordinarily will be litigated in
the first instance in the district court, the forum best suited
to developing the facts necessary to determining the adequacy of
representation during an entire trial.” Massaro v. United
States, 538 U.S. 500, 504-05 (2003); see also United States v.
Chavez-Valencia, 116 F.3d 127, 133-34 (5th Cir. 1997) (declining
to review claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to file
motion to suppress).
We conclude that a motion brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255
would be preferable to direct appeal for deciding Chambliss’s
claim. See Massaro, 538 U.S. at 504-05. Accordingly, without
prejudice to Chambliss’s right to file a motion pursuant to
§ 2255, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.