Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Mandeep SINGH, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-11-11
Citations: 401 F. App'x 874
Docket Number: No. 10-40140
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Mandeep SINGH, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 401
Pages: 874–874

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Mandeep SINGH, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-40140
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Nov. 11, 2010.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Erik R. Sunde, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Mandeep Singh appeals his conviction and sentence for possession with intent to distribute approximately 899 kilograms of marijuana. We affirm.
Singh argues that he was constructively denied counsel because, prior to his first trial which ended in a mistrial, his lawyer advised the court that he had been suspended by the State of Texas for failing to pay his bar dues. The current record is insufficiently developed regarding the merits of Singh's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, so we decline to consider this claim on direct appeal. See United States v. Cantwell, 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir.2006).
Singh also contends that the district court failed to state adequate reasons for his sentence, which was within the properly calculated guidelines range. He concedes that review is only for plain error and that he cannot show that the allegedly inadequate explanation affected his sentence. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 130 S.Ct. 192, 175 L.Ed.2d 120 (2009). He argues only that the plain-error standard of review applied to sentences pursuant to Mondrag on-Santiago should be relaxed, and he seeks to preserve this issue for further review.
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.