United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT May 15, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-20486
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
RATHNA MEN KING
Defendant - Appellant
--------------------
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:04-CR-413-3
--------------------
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Rathna Men King appeals his jury-trial conviction of
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or
more of methamphetamine, MDMA, and less than 50 kilograms of
marijuana, and possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or
more of methamphetamine, and MDMA, and his concurrent 360-month
prison sentences.
King argues that trial counsel was ineffective for pursuing,
as a defense theory, that the Government failed to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that King knew the quantity or type of involved
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-20486
-2-
controlled substances because the argument was foreclosed by
United States v. Cartwright, 6 F.3d 294 (5th Cir. 1993), and
United States v. Gamez-Gonzalez, 319 F.3d 695, 699-700 (5th Cir.
2003).
As a general rule, we decline to review claims of
ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal, although we
may do so in exceptional cases. See United States v. Higdon,
832 F.2d 312, 313-14 (5th Cir. 1987). Although King asserts that
this court may review his ineffective-assistance claim because
trial counsel’s strategy and knowledge of the applicable law are
ascertainable from the record, review of King’s ineffective
assistance of counsel claim at this juncture would require this
court “to speculate as to the reasons for [counsel’s] alleged
acts and omissions.” United States v. Kizzee, 150 F.3d 497,
502-03 (5th Cir. 1998) (quotation at 503). Accordingly, we
decline to review King’s ineffective assistance claim in this
direct appeal. The judgment of the district court is affirmed
without prejudice to King’s right to raise an ineffective-
assistance claim in a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct
sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We express no view on the
merits of such a motion.
AFFIRMED.