United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 22-50383

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Princewill Tata, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:21-CR-325-1 

______________________________

Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Princewill Tata pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement in which 

he waived the right to appeal his conviction and sentence, to one count of 

possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of actual 

methamphetamine. The district court sentenced him to 262 months of 

imprisonment and five years of supervised release. On appeal, Tata argues 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 5, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-50383 Document: 00516774873 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/05/2023
No. 22-50383

2

that counsel was ineffective because he failed to inform Tata of the 

sentencing consequences he faced by pleading guilty to an offense involving 

actual methamphetamine and therefore that his guilty plea is invalid; Tata 

also argues that his sentence is procedurally and substantively unreasonable. 

In the plea agreement, Tata reserved the right to raise an ineffective 

assistance of counsel claim. 

“Sixth Amendment claims of ineffective assistance of counsel should 

not be litigated on direct appeal, unless they were previously presented to the 

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

quotation marks and citation omitted). This court will consider ineffective 

assistance claims on direct appeal “only in ‘rare cases in which the record 

allows a reviewing court to fairly evaluate the merits of the claim.’” Id.

(citation omitted). Although Tata did not raise the specific claim he asserts 

on appeal in the district court, the record is sufficiently developed for the 

court to consider the claim on appeal, and consequently we review the claim 

for plain error. See United States v. Chavez-Valencia, 116 F.3d 127, 133 (5th 

Cir. 1997); see also United States v. Brown, 328 F.3d 787, 789 (5th Cir. 2003). 

Tata’s claim that counsel failed to explain the harsher sentence he 

faced under the Guidelines by admitting that the offense involved actual 

methamphetamine, rather than a mixture or substance containing 

methamphetamine, is unavailing. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c). Even if counsel 

failed to advise Tata of his true sentencing exposure, the record reflects that 

he understood that he faced a potential maximum sentence of life in prison 

when he entered his guilty plea. Thus, Tata understood the consequences of 

pleading guilty. See United States v. Rivera, 898 F.2d 442, 447 (5th Cir. 1990); 

see also United States v. Pearson, 910 F.2d 221, 223 (5th Cir. 1990). 

Additionally, regardless of any deficient performance on counsel’s part, Tata 

has not shown prejudice because he has not shown that there is a reasonable 

probability that, but for counsel’s alleged error, he would not have pleaded 

Case: 22-50383 Document: 00516774873 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/05/2023
No. 22-50383

3

guilty but would have proceeded to trial. See Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134, 

148 (2012). Tata’s challenges to the reasonableness of his sentence are 

barred by the valid appeal waiver. See United States v. Bond, 414 F.3d 542, 

544, 546 (5th Cir. 2005).

Tata’s conviction is AFFIRMED. To the extent that the appeal 

challenges his sentence, it is DISMISSED. 

Case: 22-50383 Document: 00516774873 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/05/2023