Case Name: UNITED STATES of America v. Carlos AGUIRRE, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-02-13
Citations: 264 F. App'x 170
Docket Number: No. 05-1377
Parties: UNITED STATES of America v. Carlos AGUIRRE, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 264
Pages: 170–171

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America v. Carlos AGUIRRE, Appellant.
No. 05-1377.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) Feb. 12, 2008.
Filed: Feb. 13, 2008.
George S. Leone, Office of United States Attorney, Newark, NJ, for Appellee.
William M. Ezersky, New Hyde Park, NY, for Appellant.
BEFORE: SLOVITER, SMITH and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
STAPLETON, Circuit Judge:
Appellant Carlos Aguirre pled guilty to using a telephone to facilitate a conspiracy to distribute cocaine. He was sentenced to 48 months of incarceration. He now appeals that sentence, arguing (1) that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during the sentencing phase of his case in the District Court, (2) that the District Court erred in declining to grant a departure from the Guideline range because of extraordinary family circumstances, and (3) that the District Court also erred in failing to grant a departure on the ground that his offense constituted aberrant behavior.
Aguirre's ineffective assistance of counsel claim was not raised in the District Court and, as a result, the record was not developed on the issues raised by that claim. In such situations, we decline to review ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal and insist that they be addressed initially in the trial court in a collateral review proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, see, e.g., United States v. Haywood, 155 F.8d 674, 678 (3d Cir.1998).
We lack jurisdiction "to review discretionary decisions [of a sentencing court] to deny departures, unless for allegations of legal error." United States v. Cooper, 437 F.3d 324, 332 (3d Cir.2006).
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court without prejudice to Aguirre pursuing his ineffective assistance of counsel claim in a proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.