Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Dennis THOMPSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-04-20
Citations: 126 F. App'x 195
Docket Number: No. 04-41022
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Dennis THOMPSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JONES, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 126
Pages: 195–196

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Dennis THOMPSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-41022.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided April 20, 2005.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Us Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Hector J. Villarreal, Law Offices of Hector J. Villarreal, Edinburg, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JONES, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Robert Dennis Thompson appeals his conviction following a jury trial for possession with intent to distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana. 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B). He argues that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance (1) by stipulating to the elements of the charged offense, (2) by not investigating and raising any pre-trial issues, and (3) by not investigating, raising, or filing a motion for new trial and/or a motion to arrest the judgment.
"We have undertaken to resolve claims of inadequate representation on direct appeal only in rare cases where the record allowed us to evaluate fairly the merits of the claim." United States v. Higdon, 832 F.2d 312, 314 (5th Cir.1987); see Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 504-05, 123 S.Ct. 1690, 155 L.Ed.2d 714 (2003). This is not one of those rare cases. Without prejudice to Thompson's right to file a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.