Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Youa Lor YANG, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-10-21
Citations: 78 F. App'x 365
Docket Number: No. 03-10312
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Youa Lor YANG, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 78
Pages: 365–366

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Youa Lor YANG, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-10312.
Conference Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 21, 2003.
Delonia Anita Watson, US Attorney’s Office, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Steven Jay Rozan, Kuniansky & Rozan, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Youa Lor Yang ('Yang") appeals his guilty-plea conviction for importing opium into the United States. For the first time on appeal, Yang argues that his counsel was ineffective for not filing a motion to suppress, not arguing in support of his motion for downward departure at sentencing, and not arguing that the Government should have filed a motion for downward departure based upon his substantial assistance.
Because Yang did not raise his claims in the district court, there is no evidentiary record on these issues. Consequently, the record has not been developed sufficiently for us to consider Yang's ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal. See United States v. Maria-Martinez, 143 F.3d 914, 916 (5th Cir.1998). Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is AFFIRMED without prejudice to Yang's right to raise his ineffective assistance of counsel claims in a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We express no view on the merits of such a motion.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.