UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT ____________________

No. 98-21141 Summary Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee, versus

LUIS ENRIQUE SUAREZ,

Defendant-Appellant. _________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (H-97-CR-50-1) _________________________________________________________________

October 26, 1999

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Luis Enrique Suarez contends that his 72-month sentence

(increased on remand from 60 months) for possession of cocaine with

intent to distribute is the product of judicial vindictiveness and

based on attorney-client communications; that his counsel was

ineffective by disclosing to the court that Suarez refused to

identify his coconspirators for fear of retaliation; and that the

* 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 R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. Government committed prosecutorial misconduct during his

arraignment.

Because, at sentencing, Suarez did not object regarding

judicial vindictiveness, our review is limited to plain error. See

United States v. Calverley,

(5th Cir. 1994) (en

banc). Although Suarez’s sentence on remand was higher than his

original sentence, thus raising a presumption of vindictiveness,

“objective information in the record justif[ied] the increased

sentence”. United States v. Campbell,

(5th Cir.

1997) (quoting Wasman v. United States,

(1984)).

Nor was Suarez’s sentence based on counsel’s disclosure of

attorney-client communications. In sum, there was no plain error.

Generally, we decline, on direct appeal, to review ineffective

assistance of counsel claims, see, United States v. Gibson,

(5th Cir. 1995); the exception is “in rare cases where the

record allow[s]” a fair evaluation of the merits. United States v.

Higdon,

(5th Cir. 1987). Here, no further facts

need to be developed for the claim to be suitable for review.

Because the district court did not arrive at the sentence by

relying on counsel’s disclosure of attorney-client communications,

Suarez has failed to show that he was prejudiced by the disclosure.

See Spriggs v. Collins,

(5th Cir. 1993).

Finally, Suarez’s prosecutorial-misconduct claim, also

reviewed for plain error because he did not make a contemporaneous

- 2 - objection, see United States v. Binker,

(5th

Cir. 1986), fails because it is not supported by the record. See

United States v. Rocha,

(5th Cir. 1990).

AFFIRMED

- 3 -