Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50523/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50523-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alejandro Balderrama
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-50523

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

ALEJANDRO BALDERRAMA,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:13-CR-925

Before BARKSDALE, CLEMENT, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Alejandro Balderrama challenges the 168-month sentence imposed 

following his guilty-plea conviction of conspiring to import more than five 

kilograms of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960, and 963. He

contends his attorney provided inadequate assistance at sentencing by failing 

to: object to the two-level increase in his offense level for recruitment of a 

minor; ask the court to recommend his placement in the 500-hour drug and 

 

* 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 1, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-50523 Document: 00513401352 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/01/2016
No. 15-50523

2

alcohol program; and object to the inclusion of certain relevant conduct in the 

calculation of his base-offense level. 

Generally, our court does not review claims of ineffective assistance of 

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

cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 123 (2014). “We have undertaken to resolve claims of 

inadequate representation on direct appeal only in rare cases where the record 

allowed us to evaluate fairly the merits of the claim.” United States v. Higdon, 

832 F.2d 312, 314 (5th Cir. 1987). In most instances, a claim qualifies as a 

“rare case” warranting review only when it was raised and developed in a posttrial motion to the district court. United States v. Stevens, 487 F.3d 232, 245 

(5th Cir. 2007). 

Because Balderrama did not raise his ineffective-assistance claims in 

district court during the trial proceedings, the court did not have evidence from 

trial counsel or make any findings for whether counsel rendered ineffective 

assistance. Instead, Balderrama raised ineffective-assistance claims in a 

motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255; but, the court dismissed his claims 

without prejudice, and determined only that he should be permitted to file an 

out-of-time direct appeal. In short, although Balderrama contends otherwise, 

the record is not sufficiently developed to allow for fair consideration of these

claims. Therefore, we decline to consider them on direct appeal, without 

prejudice, of course, to Balderrama’s right to raise them on collateral review. 

See Isgar, 739 F.3d at 841. 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-50523 Document: 00513401352 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/01/2016