USA v. Leopoldo Valencia-Urrea, No. 12-51191 (5th Cir. 2013)Annotate this Case
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on January 20, 2014.
Case: 12-51191 Document: 00512461757 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/05/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 12-51191 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED December 5, 2013 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee Lyle W. Cayce Clerk v. LEOPOLDO VALENCIA-URREA, Defendant - Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:10-CR-973-3 Before KING, BARKSDALE, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Leopoldo Valencia-Urrea appeals his guilty-plea convictions and sentences for conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud, and conspiracy to commit money laundering. He claims he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel (IAC). In particular, he maintains counsel, inter alia, encouraged him to sign a plea agreement that provided little or no benefit to him and failed to file a written response to the 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 12-51191 Document: 00512461757 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/05/2013 No. 12-51191 Government s sentencing memorandum, which sought an increased sentence based on his post-plea conduct. Valencia did not raise his IAC claims in district court. [T]he general rule in this circuit is that a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel cannot be resolved on direct appeal when the claim has 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) (alteration in original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Because we cannot fairly evaluate the [IAC] claim[s] from the record , we decline to consider them, without prejudice to his right to raise them in a subsequent proceeding, such as pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. United States v. Gulley, 526 F.3d 809, 821 (5th Cir. 2008). AFFIRMED. 2