Case ID: f-appx_587/html/0218-01.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. John Mark WHEELER, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-41250
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Dec. 15, 2014.
    Tracey M. Batson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Plano, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Donald Lee Bailey, Sherman, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

John Mark Wheeler appeals his guilty plea and sentence for possession of a firearm by a felon. Wheeler’s challenge to an increase in his offense level is barred by an appeal waiver. See United States v. Bond, 414 F.3d 542, 544-46 & n. 4 (5th Cir.2005).

However, Wheeler also contends that his plea and the waiver are invalid due to ineffective assistance of counsel in the form of erroneous advice about the sentence Wheeler would receive. Such a claim of ineffective counsel is expressly preserved in the plea agreement. Nonetheless, we decline to address it in this direct appeal because the record is not sufficiently developed. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir.2014), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 123, 190 L.Ed.2d 94 (2014) (No. 13-10484). The claim may be brought in a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 504-06, 123 S.Ct. 1690, 155 L.Ed.2d 714 (2003).

Because the issues Wheeler raises are either barred by the waiver or not suitable for resolution on direct appeal, the judgment is AFFIRMED. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is DENIED. The Government’s motion for an extension of time to file an appeal brief is DENIED as unnecessary. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has ' determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.