USA v. Napoleon Randall, No. 09-50970 (5th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Case: 09-50970 Document: 00511196492 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/06/2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 09-50970 Summary Calendar August 6, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. NAPOLEON LAJUAN RANDALL, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:05-CR-63-2 Before BARKSDALE, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Napoleon Lajuan Randall challenges his guilty-plea conviction for attempt to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C). Randall claims his trial counsel was ineffective because: at sentencing, counsel denied Randall was the drug transaction s financial source, despite Randall s admission in the factual basis, resulting in the loss of a three-level acceptance-of-responsibility reduction; and, counsel failed to * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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: 09-50970 Document: 00511196492 Page: 2 No. 09-50970 Date Filed: 08/06/2010 investigate the facts of the case and erroneously advised Randall concerning the charges against him, causing his guilty plea to be unknowing and involuntary. The record is insufficiently developed, however, to allow consideration now of Randall s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; they 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) (quoting United States v. Pierce, 959 F.2d 1297, 1301 (5th Cir. 1992)). 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.