Case ID: f-appx_298/html/0681-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Maurice WATSON, aka; Maurice Mark Watson, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 07-10000
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 28, 2008 .
    Filed Nov. 5, 2008.
    Claire Kiehl Lefkowitz, Esq., USTU— Office of the U.S. Attorney Evo A. Deconeini, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    David Taylor Shannon, Esq., FPDAZ— Federal Public Defender’s Office, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before HAWKINS, RAWLINSON and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Maurice Watson appeals from the 77-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal re-entry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Watson contends that the district court plainly erred by failing to find that two of his prior offenses were related under United States Sentencing Guidelines § 4A 1.2. We conclude that the district court did not plainly err in treating the offenses as unrelated. See United States v. Asberry, 394 F.3d 712, 719 (9th Cir.2005). Watson contends that a presentence report may not be used to determine whether prior offenses were related. Assuming this claim is properly before us, it fails. See United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1085 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc); United States v. Ells-worth, 456 F.3d 1146, 1152 (9th Cir.2006).

Watson also contends that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance. We decline to reach the merits of this claim. The record is not sufficiently developed to warrant departing from our general rule that challenges to the effectiveness of defense counsel will not be considered on direct appeal. See United States v. Jeronimo, 398 F.3d 1149, 1155-56 (9th Cir.2005).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.