Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alex LOPEZ-CRUZ, Also Known as Alex Lopez Cruz, Also Known as Rene Cruz-Lopez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-09-01
Citations: 393 F. App'x 235
Docket Number: No. 09-50763
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alex LOPEZ-CRUZ, Also Known as Alex Lopez Cruz, Also Known as Rene Cruz-Lopez, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 393
Pages: 235–235

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alex LOPEZ-CRUZ, Also Known as Alex Lopez Cruz, Also Known as Rene Cruz-Lopez, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-50763
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Sept. 1, 2010.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Adana Pugh, Slater & Kennon, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Alex Lopez-Cruz appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine. As part of his plea agreement, Lopez-Cruz waived the right to appeal his sentence except for "a good faith allegation that it was the result of ineffective assistance of counsel or prose-cutorial misconduct." On appeal, he argues that his counsel was ineffective at sentencing for failing to object to the firearm adjustment applied to his sentence and for failing to bring information about responsibility for the firearm to the attention of the probation officer.
Because Lopez-Cruz did not raise this issue in district court, the record is not sufficiently developed for us to review the claim. See United States v. Cantwell, 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir.2006). Accordingly, the judgment 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.