United States v. Dedow , 88 F. App'x 49 ( 2004 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS February 18, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-40872
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
WAYNE DEDOW,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. C-02-CR-2-1
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Wayne Dedow appeals his sentence following the revocation of
his supervised release term relating to Dedow’s 1993 guilty plea
conviction for conspiracy to distribute more than 100 kilograms
of marijuana. Dedow argues that 1) his 35-month prison sentence
is unauthorized and excessive, 2) the district court erred by
imposing a “new” 13-month term of supervised release, and 3) his
attorney rendered ineffective assistance.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-40872
-2-
Based on his underlying drug conspiracy conviction, Dedow’s
35-month sentence did not exceed the statutory maximum under 18
U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) and was therefore legally imposed. See
United States v. Giddings, 37 F.3d 1091, 1093 (5th Cir. 1994).
Dedow’s challenge to his 13-month term of supervised release,
raised for the first time on appeal, is foreclosed by Johnson v.
United States, 529 U.S. 694, 702-03, 712-13 (2000). Accordingly,
Dedow’s argument does not survive plain error review. See United
States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994)(en
banc).
Dedow’s ineffective assistance of counsel arguments were not
presented to the district court, and Dedow fails to identify
portions of the record that provide substantial details about his
attorney’s conduct. We therefore decline to address those issues
on direct appeal. United States v. Bounds, 943 F.2d 541, 544
(5th Cir. 1991).
AFFIRMED.