Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Gilberto MADRILES-GUZMAN, also known as Gilberto M. Guzman, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-10-15
Citations: 250 F. App'x 631
Docket Number: No. 06-51359
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Gilberto MADRILES-GUZMAN, also known as Gilberto M. Guzman, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 250
Pages: 631–631

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Gilberto MADRILES-GUZMAN, also known as Gilberto M. Guzman, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-51359
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 15, 2007.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Patrick A. Lara, El Paso, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before KING, DAVIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Gilberto Madriles-Guzman appeals his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and possession with intent to distribute cocaine. Madriles-Guzman argues that his retained attorney performed ineffectively at trial and at sentencing and that the district court plainly erred during voir dire by commenting on the quantity of drugs involved in the offense.
A 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion is the preferred method for raising a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 503-04, 123 S.Ct. 1690, 155 L.Ed.2d 714 (2003). We decline to address the claims of ineffective counsel raised in this case because there has been no opportunity to develop the record as to the merits of the claims. See United States v. Miller, 406 F.3d 323, 335-36 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 929, 126 S.Ct. 207, 163 L.Ed.2d 278 (2005). The district court's comments during voir dire were not plainly erroneous. See United States v. Lankford, 196 F.3d 563, 572-73 (5th Cir.1999).
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.