Case ID: f-appx_505/html/0634-02.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. Lucia RAMIREZ-VASQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-10452.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Jan. 15, 2013.
    
    Filed Jan. 16, 2013.
    Bruce M. Ferg, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    John D. Kaufmann, Esquire, Law Office of John D. Kaufmann, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Ramirez-Vasquez's motion requesting oral argument is denied.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Lucia Ramirez-Vasquez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 60-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We dismiss.

Ramirez-Vasquez has waived her right to appeal her sentence. She contends, however, that she did not knowingly and intelligently enter into the plea agreement because she relied on her counsel’s erroneous prediction as to the length of her sentence. Because this contention depends on a determination whether Ramirez-Vasquez’s counsel provided ineffective assistance, we decline to consider this claim on direct appeal, and the record is insufficiently developed to make this determination. See United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1259-60 (9th Cir.2011).

Ramirez-Vasquez asserts no other challenges to the voluntariness of her waiver. We accordingly dismiss this appeal. See id. at 1260.

The government’s motion to strike portions of the excerpts of record and opening brief is denied.

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