Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kristopher BROCK, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-16
Citations: 115 F. App'x 214
Docket Number: No. 04-20271
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kristopher BROCK, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 115
Pages: 214–214

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kristopher BROCK, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-20271.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Dec. 16, 2004.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jerome Godinich, Jr., Law Office of Jerome Godinieh Jr., Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Kristopher Brock appeals his conviction and sentence following a jury trial for possession with intent to distribute five grams or more of cocaine base. 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(l)(B)(iii). He argues that 1) his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to object at trial to testimony regarding his criminal history, 2) his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to object at trial to the admissibility of a tape recording and to a witness's trial testimony regarding the contents of that tape recording, and 3) the cumulative effect of his trial counsel's errors deprived him of a fair trial.
"We have undertaken to resolve claims of inadequate representation on direct appeal only in rare cases where the record allowed us to evaluate fairly the merits of the claim." United States v. Higdon, 832 F.2d 312, 314 (5th Cir.1987); see Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 504-05, 123 S.Ct. 1690, 155 L.Ed.2d 714 (2003). This is not one of those rare cases. 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.