Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Lidio RESENDEZ-GUERRERO, also known as Juan M. Castillo-Lopez, also known as Juan Casdtillo-Lopez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-04-26
Citations: 470 F. App'x 290
Docket Number: No. 11-50424
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Lidio RESENDEZ-GUERRERO, also known as Juan M. Castillo-Lopez, also known as Juan Casdtillo-Lopez, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 470
Pages: 290–290

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Lidio RESENDEZ-GUERRERO, also known as Juan M. Castillo-Lopez, also known as Juan Casdtillo-Lopez, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-50424
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 26, 2012.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Simon M. Azar-Farr, Esq., Simon Azar-Farr & Associates, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before BENAVIDES, STEWART, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Lidio Resendez-Guerrero (Resendez) appeals from his conviction for illegal reentry pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). His argument that his conviction must be vacated because neither the indictment nor the factual basis for his guilty plea mentioned that he had committed a prior aggravated felony is foreclosed and presents no legitimate basis for appeal. See United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir.2007). We decline to consider his ineffective assistance of counsel claims because he did not raise them in the district court, the claims are premised upon evidence not contained in the record, and the record is not sufficiently developed for this court to consider the claims. See United States v. Cantwell, 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir.2006); United States v. Navejar, 963 F.2d 732, 735 (5th Cir.1992).
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.