IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-40200
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
HARRY CADAVID,
a/k/a Victor Emdara,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. M-95-CR-134-7
- - - - - - - - - -
July 10, 1997
Before WISDOM, KING and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Harry Cadavid was convicted for conspiracy to possess with
intent to distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana. He
appeals the resultant sentence. Cadavid argues that the district
court erred by failing to reduce his offense level pursuant to
U.S.S.G. §§ 2D1.1(b)(4), 5C1.2, and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) and that
he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Because Cadavid
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 96-40200
- 2 -
raises the sentencing issue for the first time on appeal, we
review the district court’s decision for plain error.1 “Plain
error is a mistake so fundamental as to constitute a ‘miscarriage
of justice’”.2 We find that no plain error was committed because
the defendant has not demonstrated that he “truthfully provided
to the government all information and evidence the defendant has
concerning the offense . . . .”3
This court would benefit from development of the record and
argument on the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel.
Accordingly, this court declines to address the claim without
prejudice to Cadavid’s ability to raise it in a proper
proceeding.4
AFFIRMED.
1
United States v. Brunson, 915 F.2d 942, 944 (5th Cir.
1990).
2
Id.
3
18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) and U.S.S.G. §5C1.2; See United
States v. Flanagan, 80 F.3d 143 (5th Cir. 1996).
4
See United States v. Higdon, 832 F.2d 312, 313-14 (5th
Cir. 1987).