P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR
. R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shed an d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR
. R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 30463 Su m m ar y Cal endar

UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee

v. M I C H A E L M A R TIN , JR D e fe nda nt

- Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f o rt he Eas t e r n Di s t r i c to f Lo ui s i ana U SD C N o. 2: 07- C R

- 157- 2

B ef ore R E AV L E Y , D AV IS, an d E L R O D , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * M i cha elM art i n , Jr. , app eal s hi s gui l ty p l ea conv i ct i on an d sen t en ce f or pos se ss i on w i t h i nt entto di st r ibut e a qu ant i t y of coc ai ne base i n vi ol at i on o f 21 U

. S. C. § 84 1. For t he r e as o n t hat he w aive d ap pe al , t he j udg m e nti s a f f i r m e d. H o w e v e r , M a r tin a r g u e s th a t c o u n s e l w a s in e ffe c tiv e fo rfa ilin gto a d v is e h im th a t h e w o u ldr e c e iv e aca r e e ro ffe n d e re n h a n c e m e n t t h a t w o u ldtr ip le h is sentence. H e argu es t h at h i s ap pea l i s n ot barred by h i s ap pea lw aiver becau se United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April6, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 30463

2 h e i s c l ai m i n gth at t h e i n ef fect ive assi st an ce of

coun selaf

fect ed the vali di t y of h is g u iltyp l e a . H e a ls o a r g u e s th a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t r e c o r dis s u ffic ie n tly d e v e l o p e d f

o r u s t o a d d r e s s h i s i n e f fe c t iv e a s s i s t a n c e c l a i m o n d i r e c ta p p e a l

. H e al t erna t ivel y asks u s t o rem an d the case t o t h e di st ri ctcourtf or an evi den t i ary h e a r in gs o th a t t h e is s u e ca n th e n b e re s o lv e do n d ir e c t a p p e a l. M art i n w aived h i s ri gh t t o app ealhi s c on vi ct i on an d sen t en ce exceptf or
a se nt enc e t hat exc ee ded t he m axi m um se nt enc e a l l ow ed bys t at ut e. I nef fec t ive assi st an ce of

coun selcl ai m s c h al l en gi n g t h e gu i l t y p lea an d w aiver provi si on th e m s e lv e s s u r v iv e th e w a iv e r . S ee Un itedS ta tes v. W h ite , 307 F. 3d 336, 343 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). Acla im o f in e ffe c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f c o u n s e l, h o w e v e r , g e n e r a lly
c anno tb e a ddr e s s e d o n di r e c t ap pe al unl e s s t he c l ai m ha s b e e n pr e s e nt e d t o t he d is tr ic t c o u r t. S ee Un i t ed Stat es v. B rew st er , 137 F. 3d 853, 859 ( 5t h C i r . 1998) ; Uni t e d St at e s v . Nav e j ar , 9 6 3 F .2 d7 3 2 , 7 3 5 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ); s e eals o Mass aro v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 5 3 8 U .S

. 5 0 0 , 5 0 5 (20 0 3 ). W e concl u de that t h e fact u ali ssues u n d e rl yi n g M art i n ’ s c l ai m of i n e f fe c t iv e a s s i s t a n c e c a n n o tb e d e t e r mi n e do n t h e c u r r e n tr e c o r d

. T h e S u p r e me C ou rth as n ot ed t h at such fact u alis sues are b estresolved b y t h e di st ri ctcourt
o n 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 re v ie w . S ee Ma s s a r o , 5 3 8 U. S

. a t5 0 2

- 0 6
. C o n s e q u e n t l y , we de c l i ne t o ad dr e s s M ar t i n’ s i ne f fe c t ive as s i s t anc e c l ai m o n di r e c t appea l

. O ur d e c is io n n o t t o a d d r e s s th e is s u e is w ith o u t p r eju d ic e to M a r t in ra is in gh is i nef fec t ive as si st ance c l ai m agai n i n a t i m el y § 2255 pro c ee di ng. AF F I RMED.