IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-11303

Summary Calendar 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee 

v. 

CHARLES HUNTER, 

Defendant-Appellant 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas 

USDC No. 4:16-CR-28-1 

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Charles Hunter pleaded guilty to one count of aiding and abetting 

possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and was sentenced to 

the statutory maximum sentence of 240 months of imprisonment and a threeyear term of supervised release. On appeal, he contends that the district court 

procedurally erred by applying a two-level sentencing enhancement under 

U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) for possession of a firearm, a two-level sentencing 

 

* 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

July 25, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-11303 Document: 00514087774 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/25/2017
No. 16-11303

2 

enhancement under § 2D1.1(b)(12) for maintaining a premises for the purpose 

of distributing methamphetamine, and a four-level sentencing enhancement 

under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a) for being an organizer or leader of drug trafficking 

activity involving five or more participants. 

Hunter concedes that our review is for plain error. To prevail, he must 

show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial 

rights. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes such a 

showing, we have the discretion to correct the error but only if it seriously 

affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id. 

Relief under the fourth prong is not “automatic if the other three prongs are 

met.” United States v. Escalante-Reyes, 689 F.3d 415, 425 (5th Cir. 2012)

(en banc). 

 At a minimum, Hunter has failed to make an adequate showing as to the 

fourth prong. He contends that we should exercise our discretion to correct 

any clear or obvious error which affected his substantial rights because his 

retained trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance on a number of grounds. 

However, to credit this argument would first require us to conclude that 

counsel was ineffective. As a general rule, claims of ineffective assistance are 

not reviewed on direct appeal where, as here, those claims have not been 

presented to the district court. United States v. Haese, 162 F.3d 359, 363 (5th 

Cir. 1998). Absent the ineffective assistance claims, he makes no other 

argument that he can satisfy the fourth prong of the plain error test. See

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

raises issues but fails to brief them adequately abandons them on appeal). 

Accordingly, Hunter has not demonstrated that the district court 

committed reversible plain procedural error. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135. 

 AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 16-11303 Document: 00514087774 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/25/2017