United States v. David Rodriguez, 521 F. App'x 313

Rodriguez, proceeding pro se, was convicted by jury and sentenced to life for conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine and conspiracy to possess/distribute pseudoephedrine.
He challenges trial counsel on five ineffectiveness theories (a–e) but the district court record lacks development of those claims.
He contends the district court should have sua sponte held a § 1827(d) hearing to assess his ability to hear the proceedings.
He argues the district court should have ordered a mental competency hearing under 18 U.S.C. § 4241.
He asserts sentencing errors, including advisory guidelines calculation, treating the guidelines as mandatory, and inadequate explanation of the sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance claims reviewable on appeal?	Rodriguez	United States	No; claims not developed in district court.
§1827(d) hearing for hearing abilities required?	Rodriguez	United States	No plain error; no district court error.
Mandatory framework and §3553(a) factors at sentencing?	Rodriguez	United States	No plain error; record shows consideration of factors.
Adequacy of sentencing explanation?	Rodriguez	United States	No plain error; explanation not clearly required to alter outcome.

United States v. Cantwell, 470 F.3d 1087 (5th Cir. 2006) (no record developed on ineffective-assistance claims; not reviewable on direct appeal)
United States v. Perez, 918 F.2d 488 (5th Cir. 1990) (plain-error standard for lack of competency hearing)
United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357 (5th Cir. 2009) (plain-error review in sentencing when raised on appeal)
United States v. Izaguirre-Losoya, 219 F.3d 437 (5th Cir. 2000) (consideration of §3553(a) factors implied by sentencing record)
United States v. Messervey, 317 F.3d 457 (5th Cir. 2002) (no reversible error without plain-error showing)
United States v. Davis, 61 F.3d 291 (5th Cir. 1995) (competency evidence insufficient to sua sponte order hearing)