J.C. Stockton, Jr., appeals the 120-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base and possession with intent to distribute cocaine base. He argues for the first time on appeal that the guidelines sentence imposed was unreasonable because the district court failed to take into account the disparate way that crack cocaine and powder cocaine are treated by the United States Sentencing Guidelines. He also argues for the first time on appeal that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise that issue at sentencing.

Stockton has not demonstrated that the district court plainly erred by imposing an unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 518-19, 520 (5th Cir. 2005). We have previously rejected arguments challenging the disparity in the penalties for offenses involving powder and crack cocaine, which are mandated by Congress. See, e.g., United States v. Wilson, 77 F.3d 105, 112 (5th Cir. 1996).

We decline to review Stockton’s ineffective assistance claim in this direct appeal. See United States v. Higdon, 832 F.2d 312, 313-14 (5th Cir. 1987).

AFFIRMED.