United States v. Quezada

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
December 12, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-51241
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ALFREDO QUEZADA,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:05-CR-338-3
--------------------
Before KING, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Alfredo Quezada appeals his 212-month sentence for
possession with intent to distribute heroin pursuant to 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(b)(1)(C). The Government does not seek enforcement of the
sentence appeal waiver provision of the written plea agreement.
Quezada contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for
failing to seek a downward departure or an offense level
reduction pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 and for failing to object
to the calculation of Quezada’s criminal history points.
However, Quezada does not challenge the application of the career
offender guideline, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, nor does he argue that

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 05-51241
-2-
counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the application
of this guideline. Quezada’s offense level and criminal history
category were dictated by § 4B1.1. Accordingly, Quezada was not
prejudiced by any allegedly deficient performance by counsel
regarding the calculation of a guideline range that would have
been applicable otherwise, but was not. Quezada has failed to
show that counsel was ineffective. See Strickland v. Washington,
466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984).
Quezada makes no argument showing that a limited role in an
offense, which is provided for in § 3B1.2, is not adequately
taken into consideration under the Sentencing Guidelines. He has
not adequately briefed any argument that counsel was ineffective
for failing to move for a downward departure based on Quezada’s
limited role in the offense, and we will not address the issue.
See United States v. Brace, 145 F.3d 247, 255-56 (5th Cir. 1998)
(en banc); FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(9).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --