IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-60435

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ANGELA SHOEMAKE,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:10-CR-123-1

Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Angela Shoemake pleaded guilty to sexual exploitation of children by 

production of sexually explicit visual or printed material and transportation or 

shipping of child pornography in and affecting interstate commerce, and was 

sentenced within the advisory guidelines range to a total term of 600 months 

of imprisonment and a five-year term of supervised release. She argues on 

appeal that the district court erred by denying her Federal Rule of Civil 

 

* 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 23, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-60435 Document: 00514399490 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/23/2018
No. 17-60435

2

Procedure 60(b) motion, made during her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding, because 

her prior counsel’s ineffective assistance at sentencing had been egregious, and 

by failing to reopen her criminal sentencing.

We do not have jurisdiction over the district court’s denial of Shoemake’s 

Rule 60(b) motion, because Shoemake did not file a notice of appeal from the 

district court’s dismissal of her § 2255 motion and denial of her Rule 60(b) 

motion; rather, she appealed only the reentered criminal judgment. See United 

States v. West, 240 F.3d 456, 462 (5th Cir. 2001). To the extent Shoemake’s 

argument could instead be read as a challenge to the procedural or substantive 

reasonableness of her sentence based on the alleged ineffective assistance of 

counsel, pursuant to Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007), we engage 

in a bifurcated review of the sentence imposed by the district court, United 

States v. Delgado-Martinez, 564 F.3d 750, 752 (5th Cir. 2009). First, we 

consider whether the district court committed a “significant procedural error, 

such as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range.” 

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. If there is no error or the error is harmless, we may 

proceed to the second step and review the substantive reasonableness of the 

sentence imposed for an abuse of discretion. Id.; see also Delgado-Martinez, 

564 F.3d at 751-53.

Notwithstanding the above, plain error review applies where, as here,

the defendant fails to object in the district court. United States v. MondragonSantiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir. 2009). To show plain error, the defendant 

must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affects her

substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If she 

makes such a showing, we have the discretion to correct the error but should 

do so “only if the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public 

 Case: 17-60435 Document: 00514399490 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/23/2018
No. 17-60435

3

reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks, brackets, 

and citations omitted).

Although Shoemake explicitly states that she is not raising a claim of 

ineffective assistance of counsel on direct review, her entire analysis focuses 

on counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness rather than on the merits of any actual 

sentencing objections. We generally do not review claims of ineffective 

assistance of counsel on direct appeal when those claims have not been 

presented and sufficiently developed before the district court, United States v. 

Haese, 162 F.3d 359, 363 (5th Cir. 1998); United States v. Bounds, 943 F.2d 

541, 544 (5th Cir. 1991), and we decline to do so here.

Other than her ineffective assistance of counsel challenge, Shoemake 

provides no meaningful or substantive argument that her sentence was 

procedurally unreasonable due to a guidelines miscalculation or that her 

within-guidelines sentence was substantively unreasonable on plain error 

review. She cites nothing more than potential objections which counsel could 

have, but did not, raise, and fails to discuss whether such objections would 

have been meritorious. Accordingly, Shoemake has abandoned any such 

argument. See United States v. Scroggins, 599 F.3d 433, 447-48 (5th Cir. 2010).

DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART.

 Case: 17-60435 Document: 00514399490 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/23/2018