United States v. Dominguez-Torres

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: August 2, 2022
• Docket: 21-20563
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 21-20563 Document: 00516416297 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/02/2022

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

FILED August 2, 2022 No. 21-20563 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Carlos Dominguez-Torres,

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:18-CR-721-5

Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Carlos Dominguez-Torres pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine and was sentenced to 135 months of imprisonment. On appeal, he contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his initial attorney failed to properly advise him

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 21-20563 Document: 00516416297 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/02/2022

No. 21-20563

regarding relevant conduct and how it would affect the calculation of his sentencing guidelines. We will consider an ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal “only in rare cases in which the record allows a reviewing court to fairly evaluate the merits of the claim.” United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). While Dominguez-Torres filed a motion for a new trial and made statements at sentencing describing counsel’s alleged deficient performance, the record lacks detail regarding the advice counsel gave Dominguez-Torres about the language in the plea agreement regarding the consideration of relevant conduct. We therefore decline to consider this claim without prejudice to Dominguez-Torres’s right to raise it in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See United States v. Kelly, 915 F.3d 344, 352 (5th Cir. 2019); see also Isgar, 739 F.3d at 841, 843 (affirming where the ineffective assistance claim was not reached). AFFIRMED.