United States v. Rocha-Ramirez ( 2007 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS June 27, 2007
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-51076
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MANUEL ALBERTO ROCHA-RAMIREZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
_______________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
No. 4:01-CR-419-2
_______________
Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Manuel Alberto Rocha-Ramirez appeals the sentence he received following the
revocation of his supervised release. Rocha-Ramirez was sentenced to 12 months of
imprisonment, to be served consecutively to the 27-month sentence he received for
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-51076
-2-
possession with intent to distribute marijuana. Rocha-Ramirez’s revocation proceeding took
place four months after he was sentenced for possession with intent to distribute.
Rocha-Ramirez contends that the district court erred by imposing his sentence
following revocation to run consecutively to his sentence for possession with intent to
distribute. He argues that his sentences would have been concurrent had his revocation
proceeding occurred in conjunction with his sentencing on the underlying offense. He
further argues that the consecutive sentencing was unreasonable because the district court
gave no reason for it and because he received ineffective assistance of counsel.
The district court had statutory discretion to impose the term of imprisonment
following revocation to run concurrent with, or consecutively to, the term of imprisonment
imposed for possession with intent to distribute. See 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a). The Sentencing
Guidelines recommended that Rocha-Ramirez’s sentence be imposed to run consecutively
to his other sentence. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f), p.s. Rocha-Ramirez received the shortest
sentence recommended by the Sentencing Guidelines. See § 7B1.4(a)(1), p.s. His 12-month
term will not commence until he has completed his 27-month term, so he cannot demonstrate
that the four-month period between his sentencing and his revocation proceeding affected
his substantial rights. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 52(a). Accordingly, Rocha-Ramirez cannot show
that his sentence is unreasonable or that it was issued in violation of the law. United States
v. Hinson, 429 F.3d 114, 115-16, 120 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1804 (2006).
No. 05-51076
-3-
Generally, this court declines to review claims of ineffective assistance of counsel
raised for the first time on direct appeal because there has been no opportunity to develop
the record. United States v. Miller, 406 F.3d 323, 335-36 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126
S. Ct. 207 (2006). The record is not sufficiently developed for consideration of Rocha-
Ramirez’s contention that counsel was ineffective.
AFFIRMED.