United States v. Leopoldo Valencia-Urrea

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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