Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Marc SCHWARTZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-01-05
Citations: 589 F. App'x 258
Docket Number: No. 14-50038
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Marc SCHWARTZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DAVIS, CLEMENT and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 589
Pages: 258–258

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Marc SCHWARTZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-50038
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Jan. 5, 2015.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Patrick A. Lara, Esq., Law Office of Patrick A. Lara, El Paso, TX, for Defen-dani>-Appellant.
Before DAVIS, CLEMENT and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Marc Schwartz appeals his conviction for conspiring to engage in racketeering for which he was sentenced to 96 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release and ordered to pay $6,819,723.87 in restitution. He contends that trial counsel was ineffective for filing deficient pretrial motions and a deficient sentencing memorandum and for failing to object to the district court's denial of the Government's motion for a downward departure. Pretermitting the timeliness of Schwartz's notice of appeal, we decline to review these claims on direct appeal because the record is not sufficiently developed to determine whether trial counsel was ineffective. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir.2014), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 135 S.Ct. 123, 190 L.Ed.2d 94 (2014). This determination is without prejudice to Schwartz's ability to raise his claims in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding.
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.