Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-20340/USCOURTS-ca5-19-20340-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jagdishkumar Chaudhari
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-20340

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

JAGDISHKUMAR CHAUDHARI, also known as Jagdish,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:16-CR-385-26

Before BARKSDALE, HAYNES, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jagdishkumar Chaudhari appeals his guilty-plea conviction and 

sentence for conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§§ 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) and 1956(h). The district court sentenced him to, inter alia, 

108 months’ imprisonment. Chaudhari, however, contends only that he 

received ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing because his attorney 

 

* 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

January 8, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-20340 Document: 00515263690 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/08/2020
No. 19-20340

2

failed to object to the court’s claimed incorrect calculation of the advisory 

Sentencing Guidelines sentencing range. 

Because trial records “may contain no evidence of alleged errors of 

omission, much less the reasons underlying them”, the preferred method for 

resolving ineffective-assistance claims is by a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, not a 

direct appeal. Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 504–05 (2003). Review

on direct appeal, however, is appropriate in the “rare case[ ]” whose record 

provides details about his attorney’s “conduct and motivations”. United States 

v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted). 

The record in this instance provides no details about why Chaudhari’s 

attorney failed to object. Accordingly, we decline to consider his claim, without 

prejudice to his right to pursue it pursuant to § 2255. 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 19-20340 Document: 00515263690 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/08/2020