USA v. Edwin Sander, No. 10-50596 (5th Cir. 2011)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 10-50596 Document: 00511438681 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/07/2011 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 10-50596 Summary Calendar April 7, 2011 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. EDWIN KIEFE SANDERS, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:10-CR-370-1 Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Edwin Kiefe Sanders appeals from his guilty plea conviction on one count of possession of material involving the sexual exploitation of children. He contends that his conviction should be set aside because his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to file a motion to suppress and by failing to request that the district court appoint a psychiatrist to evaluate his competence to plead guilty. * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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: 10-50596 Document: 00511438681 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/07/2011 No. 10-50596 As a general rule, this court will not consider an ineffective-assistance-ofcounsel claim that was not raised in district court. United States v. Higdon, 832 F.2d 312, 313-14 (5th Cir. 1987). Moreover, the Supreme Court has emphasized that 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 (2003). As the record for this case is not sufficiently developed to qualify for an exception to that general rule, we decline to consider Sanders s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in this appeal without prejudice to his ability to raise this claim in a § 2255 motion. The judgment of the district court is 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.