Case: 13-11826 Date Filed: 12/30/2013 Page: 1 of 2
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-11826
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:11-cr-00002-SCB-TGW-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MIQUEL HARRELL,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(December 30, 2013)
Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
Case: 13-11826 Date Filed: 12/30/2013 Page: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Miquel Harrell appeals his conviction, following a guilty plea, of possession
of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
924(c). His sentence was reimposed to allow a timely appeal, following a grant of
some section 2255 relief. On appeal, he argues that his trial counsel was
ineffective for failing to advise him of the option to plead guilty to Count One in
the indictment, attempted possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, but to
proceed to trial on the firearm offense in Count Two. He also argues that the
magistrate judge plainly erred during the plea colloquy by not explaining this
option: pleading guilty to one count and not guilty to the other. We cannot
consider Harrell’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal because
the record on point is not sufficiently developed: for example, no district court fact
findings. Instead, Harrell can attempt to raise this claim through a 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 motion. Especially given the lack of precedent on point, the magistrate
judge did not plainly err in conducting the Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 plea colloquy: the
judge separately explained the two charges, accepted Harrell’s guilty plea
separately on each charge, and sufficiently explained Harrell’s right to persist in a
plea of not guilty.
AFFIRMED.
2