Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-13-20523/USCOURTS-ca5-13-20523-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Omar Quiroz-Quiroz
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-20523

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

OMAR QUIROZ-QUIROZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:04-CR-523

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Omar Quiroz-Quiroz (Quiroz) appeals his guilty plea conviction of 

conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of 

cocaine. He argues that the district court erred by failing to order sua sponte 

the withdrawal of his guilty plea based upon ineffective assistance of counsel.

Because Quiroz did not raise this issue below, review is for plain error. 

See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). Quiroz presents no 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 27, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 13-20523 Document: 00512984624 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/27/2015
No. 13-20523

authority for the notion that a district court has a duty to order sua sponte the 

withdrawal of a guilty plea. This court has declined to impose such a duty. 

See, e.g., United States v. Abreo, 30 F.3d 29, 31 & n. 1 (5th Cir. 1994).

Quiroz fails to show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious. See Puckett, 

556 U.S. at 135. Furthermore, he fails to demonstrate that the error, if any, 

affected his substantial rights because the record reflects that Quiroz was fully 

informed and understood that there was no guarantee that the safety valve 

would apply to him. Id.

Contrary to Quiroz’s contention, the record is not sufficiently developed 

to allow this court to address his ineffective assistance of counsel claims on 

direct appeal. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir.), cert. 

denied, 135 S. Ct. 123 (2014). Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 13-20523 Document: 00512984624 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/27/2015