Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Eric Daniel PINON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-22
Citations: 430 F. App'x 298
Docket Number: No. 10-50705
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Eric Daniel PINON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 430
Pages: 298–299

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Eric Daniel PINON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-50705
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 22, 2011.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Thomas L. Wright, El Paso, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before DAVIS, SMITH and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Eric Daniel Pinon challenges his 97-month sentence for aiding and abetting possession with intent to deliver between 100 and 1000 kilograms of marijuana. He asserts that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing during sentencing to re-urge his written objection to the presentence report's recommendation that Pinon be denied a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility.
Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel generally "cannot be resolved on direct appeal when [they have] not been raised before the district court since no opportunity existed to develop the record on the merits of the allegations." United States v. Cantwell, 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir.2006). Because the record before us is not sufficiently developed, we decline to address the issue on direct appeal. See id.
Additionally, Pinon asserts that the district court erred under Rule 32 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure by failing to rule on his written objection. We find no plain error, as the court adopted the presentence report. See United States v. Carreon, 11 F.3d 1225, 1231 (5th Cir.1994).
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.