Case: 13-30850 Document: 00512567827 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/20/2014
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 13-30850 March 20, 2014
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
ABDUL HAFEEZ,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:12-CR-289
Before REAVLEY, JONES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Abdul Hafeez pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to conspiracy
to defraud the United States. In the plea agreement, Hafeez waived his right
to appeal his conviction, sentence, fine, and restitution, but he reserved the
right to appeal a sentence imposed in excess of the statutory maximum. The
district court sentenced Hafeez to 10 months of imprisonment and three years
of supervised release and ordered him to pay a $30,000 fine and $153,939.85
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Case: 13-30850 Document: 00512567827 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/20/2014
No. 13-30850
in restitution to the Internal Revenue Service. Additionally, the district court
denied Hafeez’s motion for release pending appeal.
On appeal, Hafeez contends that the district court erroneously calculated
the tax loss and restitution award. He argues that his appeal waiver does not
bar this appeal because trial counsel was ineffective for failing to determine
the appropriate tax loss amount before agreeing to a tax loss range in the plea
agreement. He also raises two other arguments against enforcement of the
appeal waiver that have not been considered because they are raised for the
first time in his reply brief. See United States v. Rodriguez, 602 F.3d 346, 360
(5th Cir. 2010). The Government seeks enforcement of the appeal waiver.
Hafeez knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his
conviction, sentence, fine, and restitution. See United States v. Portillo, 18
F.3d 290, 292 (5th Cir. 1994). His claim of ineffective assistance of counsel
arguably raises a claim of ineffectiveness affecting the validity of his appeal
waiver or plea, which survives a waiver of appeal. See United States v. White,
307 F.3d 336, 343 (5th Cir. 2002). However, we decline to review this claim of
ineffective assistance of counsel because the record is not adequately developed
to enable us to review this claim on direct appeal. See United States v.
Cantwell, 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir. 2006).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Hafeez’s incorporated
motion for release pending appeal is DENIED. See 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b)(1)(B).
2