USA v. Quezada, No. 05-51241 (5th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 05-51241 Conference Calendar December 12, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk 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 * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. No. 05-51241 -2counsel 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. show that counsel was ineffective. Quezada has failed to 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.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
