Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Laurencio MARTINEZ-RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-10-13
Citations: 202 F. App'x 711
Docket Number: No. 05-40182
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Laurencio MARTINEZ-RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 202
Pages: 711–712

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Laurencio MARTINEZ-RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-40182
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 13, 2006.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern Dis trict of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Fabian Guerrero, Law Office of Fabian Guerrero, Edinburg, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Laurencio Martinez-Ramirez appeals from the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. Martinez-Ramirez argues that, although Lazaro Izaguirre was his counsel of record, Roberto Izaguirre was also acting as his counsel. Martinez-Ramirez asserts that he received ineffective assistance of counsel due to the conflict of interest caused by Roberto's representation of Martinez-Ramirez's co-defendant, Everardo Lopez-Garza.
The district court's conclusions regarding claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are mixed questions of law and fact which this court reviews de novo. United States v. Bass, 310 F.3d 321, 325 (5th Cir.2002). Even if it is assumed that Martinez-Ramirez has established that Roberto was acting as his counsel, he has failed to show that an actual conflict of interest existed regarding Roberto or Lazaro. United States v. Infante, 404 F.3d 376, 390-91 (5th Cir.2005).
Accordingly, the district court's 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.