United States v. Farawe ( 2002 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-21043
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SULAIMAN MUSTAPHA FARAWE, also known
as Michael Ajibola Farawe,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(H-01-CR-303-2)
--------------------
November 7, 2002
Before DAVIS, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Defendant-Appellee Sulaiman Mustapha Farawe appeals the
sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
conspiracy to possess and traffic in 15 or more counterfeit or
unauthorized access devices and aiding and abetting in the
possession of more than 15 counterfeit or unauthorized access
devices. He first argues that the district court erred in basing
its loss calculation on the intended loss from his credit card
fraud rather than the actual loss. We have reviewed the record and
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
conclude that the district court did not plainly err by calculating
Farawe’s sentence on the basis of the intended loss. See United
States v. Saacks, 131 F.3d 540, 542-43 (5th Cir. 1997); United
States v. Ismoila, 100 F.3d 380, 396 (5th Cir. 1996).
We also reject Farawe’s argument that the district court
improperly denied him credit for acceptance of responsibility.
Throughout the rearraignment and sentencing, Farawe attempted to
minimize his participation in the offense of conviction and
attempted to downplay his fraudulent intent. See U.S.S.G.
§ 3E1.1(a); United States v. Wilder, 15 F.3d 1292, 1299 (5th Cir.
1994).
Farawe contends that counsel was ineffective for failing to
“protect” his opportunity to receive a two-level adjustment for
acceptance of responsibility and for failing to investigate and
object to the loss and restitution calculations. We decline to
review Sixth Amendment claims of ineffective assistance of counsel
on direct appeal when, as here, the record is not sufficiently
developed to allow us to evaluate fairly the merits of the claims.
See United States v. Gibson, 55 F.3d 173, 179 (5th Cir. 1995);
United States v. Higdon, 832 F.2d 312, 314 (5th Cir. 1987).
AFFIRMED.
2