
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ruben ALONZO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 04-50655.
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided April 20, 2005.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Stuart Lawrence Leeds, El Paso, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before JONES, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Ruben Alonzo appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for importing marijuana into the United States, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960. He argues that his counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance by failing to investigate adequately his criminal history. Alonzo alleges that, before advising him to enter a plea agreement, counsel did not have an accurate idea of the applicable guideline range.

The trial court allowed Alonzo’s initial attorney to withdraw and substituted new counsel prior to sentencing Alonzo. Thereafter, Alonzo neither moved to withdraw his guilty plea nor raised the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel in the district court. We conclude that the record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration of this issue on direct appeal. See United States v. Price, 95 F.3d 364, 369 (5th Cir.1996); United States v. Higdon, 832 F.2d 312, 314 (5th Cir.1987). Accordingly, without prejudice to Alonzo’s right to file a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, the judgment of the district court is 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     