USA v. Mandeep Singh

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [10-40140 Affirmed ] Judge: EGJ , Judge: EMG , Judge: CES Mandate pull date is 12/02/2010 for Appellant Mandeep Singh [10-40140]

USA v. Mandeep Singh se: 10-40140 Ca

Document: 00511291299 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/11/2010

Doc. 0

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 10-40140 S u m m a r y Calendar November 11, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

U N IT E D STATES OF AMERICA, P la in t if f -A p p e lle e v. M A N D E E P SINGH, D e fe n d a n t -A p p e lla n t

A p p e a l from the United States District Court fo r the Southern District of Texas U S D C No. 2:09-CR-582-1

B e fo r e JOLLY, GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* M a n d e e p Singh appeals his conviction and sentence for possession with in t e n t to distribute approximately 899 kilograms of marijuana. We affirm. S in g h argues that he was constructively denied counsel because, prior to h is first trial which ended in a mistrial, his lawyer advised the court that he had b e e n suspended by the State of Texas for failing to pay his bar dues. The current r e c o r d is insufficiently developed regarding the merits of Singh's claim of

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.

*

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-40140 Document: 00511291299 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/11/2010 No. 10-40140 in e ffe c t iv e assistance of counsel, so we decline to consider this claim on direct a p p e a l. See United States v. Cantwell, 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir. 2006). Singh also contends that the district court failed to state adequate reasons fo r his sentence, which was within the properly calculated guidelines range. He c o n c e d e s that review is only for plain error and that he cannot show that the a lle g e d ly inadequate explanation affected his sentence. See United States v. M o n d r a g o n -S a n tia g o , 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 192 (2 0 0 9 ). He argues only that the plain-error standard of review applied to

s e n te n c e s pursuant to Mondragon-Santiago should be relaxed, and he seeks to p r e s e r v e this issue for further review. T h e judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED

2