USA v. Bobby Curtis, No. 09-30464 (5th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 09-30464 Document: 00511117035 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/20/2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 09-30464 Summary Calendar May 20, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. BOBBY D. CURTIS, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 1:08-CR-207-1 Before KING, BARKSDALE, and GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Bobby D. Curtis appeals both his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for concealment of bankruptcy assets, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 152(1). His only contention, however, is that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance by: failing to produce any evidence regarding the valuation of E-rate contracts; giving incorrect advice regarding the statute of limitations for concealment of bankruptcy assets; and failing to ascertain facts regarding the amount of assets Curtis allegedly concealed. * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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. Case: 09-30464 Document: 00511117035 Page: 2 No. 09-30464 Date Filed: 05/20/2010 Generally, our court declines to review ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal; an exception is in rare cases where the record allow[s the court] to evaluate fairly the merits of the claim . United States v. Kizzee, 150 F.3d 497, 502 (5th Cir. 1998) (quoting United States v. Higdon, 832 F.2d 312, 314 (5th Cir. 1987)). The record at hand is not sufficiently developed to permit direct review of Curtis ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims. See id. at 502 03 (declining to consider ineffective-assistance claim where no testimony was taken nor factual findings made regarding that claim). Therefore, we decline to consider Curtis ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims. This, of course, is without prejudice to his right to present them in a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See id. at 503 (citing United States v. Price, 95 F.3d 364, 369 (5th Cir. 1996)). AFFIRMED. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
