IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-41302
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RAFAEL DOMINGUEZ-BETANCOURT,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. C-00-CR-203-1
--------------------
May 18, 2001
Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Rafael Dominguez-Betancourt ("Dominguez") appeals from his
conviction and sentence for possession within intent to
distribute approximately eleven kilograms of cocaine in violation
of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A). Dominguez argues
that the district court erred in failing to reduce his offense
level pursuant to the safety valve of U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2. We
review for plain error when the defendant has not objected to the
presentence investigation report or at the sentencing hearing.
United States v. Flanagan, 87 F.3d 121, 124 (5th Cir. 1996). We
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-41302
-2-
conclude that the district court did not mistakenly believe that
it lacked the authority to sentence Dominguez below the statutory
mandatory minimum and did not misapply the sentencing guidelines.
See Flanagan, 87 F.3d at 125; United States v. Edwards, 65 F.3d
430, 433 (5th Cir. 1995).
Dominguez also argues that his trial counsel rendered
ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to argue for the
safety valve at sentencing. This court will review claims for
ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal only in rare
cases in which the record has been fully developed and allows for
a fair evaluation on the merits. United States v. Navejar, 963
F.2d 732, 735 (5th Cir. 1992). In general, the appropriate place
to raise an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is in a 28
U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The record here shows that both
Dominguez's trial and appellate counsel were present at
sentencing. The record is not adequately developed to examine
counsel's understanding of the roles of each attorney at
sentencing or the reason that trial counsel did not advance the
safety valve argument. Dominguez asserts for the first time in
his reply brief that his appellate counsel was also ineffective
at the sentencing hearing. We do not review claims raised for
the first time in a reply brief. See United States v. Jackson,
50 F.3d 1335, 1340 n.7 (5th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, we decline
to review the ineffective assistance claims.
AFFIRMED.