Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Kenneth Laray WHITE, also known as Jayquan, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-03-30
Citations: 683 F. App'x 330
Docket Number: No. 16-10046 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Kenneth Laray WHITE, also known as Jayquan, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before JOLLY, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 683
Pages: 330–331

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Kenneth Laray WHITE, also known as Jayquan, Defendant-Appellant
No. 16-10046 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed March 30, 2017
Brian W. Portugal, Assistant U.S. Attorney, James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Before JOLLY, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth Laray White appeals his guilty-plea convictions for use of a facility of interstate commerce in aid of a racketeering enterprise and being a felon in posses sion of a firearm. He asserts that his guilty plea was involuntary because his trial attorney rendered ineffective assistance by, inter alia, misinforming him about the strength of the Government's case and failing to inform him of exculpatory evidence.
We generally will not consider the merits of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal but will do so only "in rare cases in which the record allows a reviewing court to fairly evaluate the merits of the claim." United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Because the record concerning counsel's conduct and motivations was not sufficiently developed in the district court, we do not consider the merits of White's claim. See id.
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.