
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Fernando R. PERDOMO-TAVERA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-41186
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Oct. 11, 2011.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Joseph R. Barroso, Corpus Christi, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before KING, JOLLY, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Fernando R. Perdomo-Tavera (Perdomo) pleaded guilty to a one-count indictment charging him with illegal reentry. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The district court sentenced him at the bottom of the advisory guidelines range to 41 months of imprisonment.

Perdomo argues that his trial counsel, Pedro Garcia, was ineffective for failing to advise him that his guidelines range would be sharply increased as a result of his prior attempted murder conviction and for utterly failing to advocate for a sentence below the applicable guidelines range. The record has not been sufficiently developed to allow consideration of Perdomo’s claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, and Perdomo has not shown that this court should make an exception to the general rule that claims of ineffective assistance of counsel cannot be resolved on direct appeal. See United States v. Cantwell, 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (2006). A post-conviction motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is the appropriate vehicle for Per-domo’s claim that trial counsel was ineffective. Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 504-06, 123 S.Ct. 1690, 155 L.Ed.2d 714 (2003).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     