IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-40834

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CRISTIAN MENDOZA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:18-CR-46-16

Before SMITH, DENNIS, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Cristian Mendoza pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to 

conspiracy to possess with intent to manufacture and distribute 500 grams or 

more of methamphetamine and was sentenced 420 months of imprisonment, 

followed by five years of supervised release. He appeals, asserting that his 

guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary because he pleaded guilty to an 

offense for which he was certain to receive a guidelines range of life 

* 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

June 29, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-40834 Document: 00515469442 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/29/2020
No. 19-40834

2

imprisonment despite the magistrate judge advising him that his guidelines 

range would not be determined until the PSR was prepared. Mendoza 

therefore contends that he was not aware of the consequences of his guilty plea 

and that had he known that he faced a guidelines range of life imprisonment 

he would not have pleaded guilty.

Because Mendoza did not raise this issue in the district court, we review 

for plain error only. See United States v. Alvarado-Casas, 715 F.3d 945, 953 

(5th Cir. 2013). The record of Mendoza’s rearraignment reflects that he 

acknowledged that he understood the consequences of his plea – including the

maximum sentence that could be imposed and the operation of the Sentencing 

Guidelines – and that he was pleading voluntarily, that no one had threatened 

him or forced him to plead guilty, and that no one had made any promises other 

than what was provided in the plea agreement. Mendoza’s “solemn 

declarations in open court . . . carry a strong presumption of verity.” United 

States v. Palmer, 456 F.3d 484, 491 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks, 

brackets, and citations omitted). Contrary to Mendoza’s assertion, he did not 

plead guilty to an offense for which he was certain to receive a guidelines range 

of life imprisonment. To the extent Mendoza argues that the plea agreement 

lacked consideration, the record reflects that he did, indeed, receive 

consideration for his plea. Mendoza has not shown any error, plain or 

otherwise, with respect to the validity of his plea.

Mendoza also asserts that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to 

object to the denial of an acceptance of responsibility reduction. Mendoza did 

not raise this claim in the district court, and we conclude that this is not one 

of the “rare cases” in which the record is sufficiently developed to allow 

consideration of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal. 

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

 Case: 19-40834 Document: 00515469442 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/29/2020
No. 19-40834

3

marks and citation omitted). Thus, we decline to consider Mendoza’s 

ineffective assistance claim without prejudice to his right to seek collateral 

review. See id.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 19-40834 Document: 00515469442 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/29/2020