Case ID: f-appx_420/html/0780-01.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. Vince Luis Hocog CRUZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-10237.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2011.
    
    Filed March 14, 2011.
    Karon Virginia Johnson, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USHA-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Hagatna, GU, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Howard Gustaf Trapp, Howard Trapp Incorporated, Hagatna, GU, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Vince Luis Hocog Cruz appeals from his jury-trial conviction and 130-month sentence imposed for possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Cruz contends that counsel was ineffective for failing to object to hearsay statements introduced at trial. We decline to address this claim on direct appeal as the record is insufficiently developed, and Cruz’s legal representation was not so inadequate that it obviously denied the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. See United States v. Ross, 206 F.3d 896, 900 (9th Cir.2000).

Cruz also contends that the district court erred because its Guidelines calculation was based upon the erroneous conclusion that the jury determined that he was responsible for 31.9 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride. Although the district court erred by instructing the jury that the government was not required to prove the amount or quantity of methamphetamine hydrochloride; the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the overwhelming and uncontested evidence indicated that Cruz was in possession of 31.9 grams of the substance. See United States v. Gracidas-Ulibarry, 231 F.3d 1188, 1197-98 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc). Accordingly, the district court did not procedurally err by improperly calculating the Guidelines range. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

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