Filed: Jun. 15, 2007
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 15, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 06-50582 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus GORDON NATHANIEL RIDLEY, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 6:05-CR-243-ALL - Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges, PER CURIAM:* Gordon Nathaniel Ridley appeals his c
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 15, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 06-50582 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus GORDON NATHANIEL RIDLEY, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 6:05-CR-243-ALL - Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges, PER CURIAM:* Gordon Nathaniel Ridley appeals his co..
More
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 15, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-50582
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
GORDON NATHANIEL RIDLEY,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 6:05-CR-243-ALL
--------------------
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges,
PER CURIAM:*
Gordon Nathaniel Ridley appeals his conviction and the
sentence imposed following a jury trial for being a convicted
felon in possession of a firearm. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
Ridley contends that the district court erred when it
increased his base offense level for obstruction of justice
pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 because the record does not support
the district court’s finding that he committed perjury on a
material matter at trial. The district court found that Ridley
committed perjury when he denied owning or possessing a weapon,
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 06-50582
-2-
testified that he was entirely unaware that there was a weapon in
his apartment until he was arrested for the instant offense, and
disclaimed knowing that the weapon was stolen during a crime in
which his brother was a suspect. The district court’s findings
are plausible in light of the record as a whole and, thus, the
district court did not clearly err in concluding that an
enhancement for obstruction of justice was warranted.
See United States v. Powers,
168 F.3d 741, 752 (5th Cir. 1999);
United States v. Laury,
985 F.2d 1293, 1308-09 (5th Cir. 1993).
Ridley also contends that the Government effectively
intimidated a defense witness and affected her testimony by
contacting her and warning her of potential perjury charges.
Ridley has not established that the conduct of the Government
improperly interfered with his defense. The Government did not
commit misconduct by contacting the defense witness and warning
her about the consequences of testifying untruthfully. See
United States v. Viera,
839 F.2d 1113, 1115 (5th Cir. 1988)(en
banc). Furthermore, the evidence does not suggest that the
witness would have offered different or further exculpatory
testimony but for her conversation with the Government.
Id.
Finally, Ridley argues that he was denied effective
assistance of counsel because his trial attorney failed to object
to a question from the Government concerning his prior conviction
for forgery. A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel
generally will not be considered for the first time on direct
No. 06-50582
-3-
appeal because there has not been an opportunity to develop
evidence on the claim. See United States v. Higdon,
832 F.2d
312, 313-14 (5th Cir. 1987). The record here has not been
sufficiently developed to permit consideration of Ridley’s claims
on direct appeal. Accordingly, we decline to entertain Ridley's
appeal on this ground, but we do so without prejudice to Ridley's
right to raise this issue collaterally in a future proceeding.
AFFIRMED.