Case ID: f-appx_548/html/0167-01.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. Leopoldo VALENCIA-URREA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-51191
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Dec. 5, 2013.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, Ellen R. Meltzer, Esq., Special Counsel, U.S. Department Of Justice, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Richard Dennis Esper, Esq., El Paso, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    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 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. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.