Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-60082/USCOURTS-ca5-15-60082-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Clarence Lee
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-60082

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff–Appellee,

versus

CLARENCE LEE, Also Known as Clarence Lee, II,

Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 2:12-CR-15

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Clarence Lee pleaded guilty of possessing a firearm after having been 

 

* 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

April 5, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-60082 Document: 00513451961 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/05/2016
No. 15-60082

2

convicted of a felony. He contends, for the first time on appeal, that his attorney was ineffective in failing properly to investigate Lee’s intellectual disabilities and mental competency, in failing to request a competency hearing, and 

in failing to apprise the district court, at sentencing, of Lee’s intellectual disabilities as a mitigating factor. He challenges the conviction and sentence.

The government moves to dismiss the appeal based on an appeal waiver

in the plea agreement or, alternatively, for summary affirmance. We pretermit 

the enforceability of the waiver, because we do not reach the merits of the 

ineffective-assistance claims in any event, given that the record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to evaluate counsel’s actions. See United States 

v. Story, 439 F.3d 226, 230–31 (5th Cir. 2006); see also United States v. Isgar, 

739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014). Our ruling is without prejudice to any right 

Lee may have to raise his ineffective-assistance claims on collateral review. 

See Isgar, 739 F.3d at 841. 

We dispense with further briefing and AFFIRM. We DENY the government’s alternative request for summary affirmance―a procedure generally 

reserved for cases in which the parties concede that the issues are foreclosed 

by circuit precedent. See United States v. Lopez, 461 F. App’x 372, 374 n.6 (5th 

Cir. 2012); United States v. Houston, 625 F.3d 871, 873 n.2 (5th Cir. 2010).

 Case: 15-60082 Document: 00513451961 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/05/2016