IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-50862
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ROBERT EARL HOPPER,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. W-95-CR-109-1
- - - - - - - - - -
February 11, 1998
Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Robert Earl Hopper appeals the sentence he received after he
pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possession with
intent to distribute methamphetamine, and to notice of the
Government’s Demand for Forfeiture. He argues that he is
entitled to the appointment of counsel on appeal. This issue is
res judicata. He also argues that he received ineffective
assistance of counsel at trial. This court, however, does not
review claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 96-50862
-2-
appeal which were not presented to the district court. United
States v. Chavez-Valencia, 116 F.3d 127, 133 (5th Cir.), cert.
denied, 118 S. Ct. 325 (1997).
Hopper argues that the waiver of the right to appeal his
sentence is not applicable because he agreed to waive the right
to appeal his sentence only if it was imposed in conformity with
the Sentencing Guidelines. Hopper further argues that the
sentencing court did not properly calculate his sentence because
it failed to distinguish between dextro-methamphetamine and levo-
methamphetamine when it determined his offense level, in
violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause. He also challenges the
drug quantity used for determining his offense level. We have
reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record and find Hopper
waived his right to appeal his sentence. Accordingly, his appeal
is DISMISSED. See United States v. Melancon, 972 F.2d 566, 568
(5th Cir. 1992).