* 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-41724

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

VINCENT EDWARD ALEXANDER,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

No. 2:04-CR-277-1

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Vincent Alexander appeals his guilty-plea conviction of and sentence for

conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of coUnited States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

November 13, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 06-41724

2

caine and conspiracy to conduct financial transactions in and affecting interstate

commerce using the proceeds from the distribution of controlled substances. Alexander contends that the district court erred in denying him a safety-valve reduction; he contends that he made a timely and complete disclosure of all relevant facts surrounding the commission of the offenses charged. According to Alexander, there is no evidentiary basis to conclude that his disclosures were untruthful or incomplete on any pertinent subject matter. He also avers that the

district courtfailed to articulate adequately its basis for denying the safety-valve

reduction.

The court did not clearly err in denying a safety-valve reduction. At sentencing, Alexander provided indefinite and inconsistent statements concerning

the extent of his knowledge of, and participation in, specific conduct relevant to

the charged offenses. See United States v. Edwards, 65 F.3d 430, 433 (5th Cir.

1995) (denying application of § 5C1.2 because the defendant provided conflicting

accounts of the offense); see also United States v. Ridgeway, 321 F.3d 512, 516

(5th Cir. 2003) (giving deference to credibility determinations made by the district court). Alexander therefore has failed to show that he truthfully provided

the government with all pertinent information and evidence. See U.S.S.G.

§ 5C1.2(a)(5); 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5); UnitedStates v.Flanagan, 80F.3d 143, 146-

47 (5th Cir. 1996). 

Alexander also asserts that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance

by failing to advocate effectively for the application of the safety valve. Alexander claims that his counsel’s actions were prejudicial because the district court

otherwise would have applied the safety valve and Alexander’s sentence would

have been reduced. Alexander alleges that the record is sufficiently developed

to enable this court to hear his ineffective assistance claim on direct appeal. 

Alexander did not raise ineffective assistance in the district court. Thus,

the record is not developed precisely for the purpose of litigating or preserving

such a claim. On the existing record, this court largely “would have to speculate
No. 06-41724

3

as to the reasons for [counsel’s] alleged acts and omissions.” United States v.

Kizzee, 150 F.3d 497, 502-03 (5th Cir. 1998). The record therefore is not sufficiently developed for us to consider Alexander’s ineffective assistance claims.

See Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 502-06 (2003). 

Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED without prejudice to Alexander’s

right to raise an ineffective assistance claim in a motion to vacate, set aside, or

correct sentence pursuantto 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We express no view on the merits

of such a claim.