IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 96-50583
Summary Calendar
_____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JUAN LaSALDE,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas
USDC No. EP-95-CR-539-2
_________________________________________________________________
July 17, 1997
Before JOLLY, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Juan LaSalde appeals his conviction and sentence for
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute in excess of 1,000
kilograms of marijuana. LaSalde asserts that the district court
erred in striking and thus denying his motion to withdraw his
guilty plea. LaSalde contends that his guilty plea was unknowing
and involuntary because counsel was ineffective, counsel
misrepresented the sentence he would receive, and the district
court did not comply with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. LaSalde also
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
contends that the district court erred in attributing to him 1,000
kilograms of marijuana.
Not only did LaSalde abandon his motion to withdraw his plea
by failing to refile it in compliance with the district court’s
local rules, see United States v. Yeatts, 639 F.2d 1186, 1188 (5th
Cir. Unit B Mar. 1981), the motion was unauthorized. See Fed. R.
Crim. P. 32(e) (motion to withdraw guilty plea can be made only
before sentencing).
LaSalde’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel cannot be
resolved on direct appeal because it was not raised before the
district court and no opportunity existed to develop the record on
the merits of the allegations. United States v. Higdon, 832 F.2d
312, 313-14 (5th Cir. 1987). A misrepresentation by counsel
regarding the sentence that LaSalde would receive is not a
sufficient basis for setting aside his guilty plea because the
district court properly advised LaSalde of the possible maximum
penalty. See United States v. Garcia, 983 F.2d 625, 629 (5th Cir.
1993).
The plea colloquy reflects that the district court addressed
Rule 11's “core concerns” and that any variance for the strict
language of Rule 11 did not affect LaSalde’s substantial rights.
See United States v. Johnson, 1 F.3d 296, 301-03 (5th Cir. 1993)
(en banc).
-2-
LaSalde waived the right to appeal his sentence. See United
States v. Portillo, 18 F.3d 290, 292-93 (5th Cir. 1994).
A F F I R M E D.
-3-