UNITED STATES v. CORDOVA (2020)

Ramiro Cordova appeals his convictions for conspiring to possess, and possessing, with intent to distribute cocaine for which he was sentenced to 240 months of imprisonment. We will not consider Cordova’s claims that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to investigate, file, and litigate a pretrial Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(b)(3)(C) motion to suppress; the record is not sufficiently developed to evaluate the merits of these claims, and they are denied without prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).

Cordova has forfeited his stand-alone Fourth Amendment claim by raising it for the first time in his reply. See United States v. Bowen, 818 F.3d 179, 192 n.8 (5th Cir. 2016). Regardless, as Cordova concedes, he is required to show plain error because he failed to file a Rule 12(b)(3)(C) motion to suppress in the district court. See United States v. Vasquez, 899 F.3d 363, 372 (5th Cir. 2018), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 1543, 203 L.Ed.2d 717 (2019). Because Cordova does not argue that any alleged error affected his substantial rights or the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings, his claim necessarily fails. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009).

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.  

PER CURIAM:* FN* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.