Case ID: f-appx_169/html/0240-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arthur J. MUHAMMAD, also known as Arthur James Jordan, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 05-10031.
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Feb. 23, 2006.
    Susan B. Cowger, Jeffrey J. Ansley, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Cheryl B. Wattley, Law Offices of Cheryl B. Wattley, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Arthur J. Muhammad appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for making false statements to a federally insured financial institution, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1041. He argues that his guilty plea was involuntary because his counsel was ineffective in permitting him to sign and file a factual resume that admitted fraudulent conduct beyond that required to establish a factual predicate for his plea. Because the record is not sufficiently developed with regard to counsel’s strategy, this claim is not ready for review. See United States v. Gibson, 55 F.3d 173, 179 (5th Cir.1995).

Muhammad argues that the Government breached the plea agreement because it did not orally recommend at sentencing a sentence at the low end of the guideline range. However, the Government’s agreement to recommend a low-end sentence was incorporated into the presentence report, meaning it was before the court at sentencing. The recommendation was therefore “self-executing.” See United States v. Reeves, 255 F.3d 208, 210-11 (5th Cir.2001). The Government did not breach the plea agreement.

Muhammad has moved for release pending appeal. The motion is denied as the rules provide only for review by this court of such motions filed in the district court, see Fed. R.App. P. 9(b), and because the motion is now moot.

AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined, that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.