Case ID: f-appx_190/html/0343-01.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. Vernal K. KILLINGS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 05-50173
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    June 21, 2006.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Brian C. Southwell, Minneapolis, MN, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Vernal K. Killings appeals the sentence imposed following his plea of guilty to conspiracy to distribute marijuana. He argues that this court should vacate his sentence because the record demonstrates ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing.

In general, claims of ineffective assistance will not be considered on direct appeal when the claims were not raised in the district court because there has been no opportunity to develop record evidence on the merits of the claim. United States v. Lampazianie, 251 F.3d 519, 527 (5th Cir.2001). Thus, when the record does not contain information regarding the tactical motivations behind counsel’s actions or information regarding how the alleged errors influenced the result of the trial, this court has declined to address an ineffective assistance issue on appeal. See United States v. Mariar-Martinez, 143 F.3d 914, 916 (5th Cir.1998). Because we find the record insufficient for review of Killings’s claims, we affirm the judgment of the district court without prejudice to Killings’s right to raise his claims in a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Id. at 918-19.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.