Case ID: f-appx_126/html/0388-01.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. Floyd BARROW, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 03-10612.
    D.C. No. CR-02-00075-FCD.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 15, 2005.
    
    Decided March 18, 2005.
    John K. Vincent, Carolyn K. Delaney, USSAC-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Joseph J. Wiseman, Wiseman Law Group, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before HAWKINS, MCKEOWN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ineffective assistance of counsel claims are not ordinarily appropriate for review on direct appeal. United States v. Ross, 206 F.3d 896, 900 (9th Cir.2000). Because factual ambiguities appear with some frequency in the record on appeal, Barrow’s claim would be better suited for habeas review.

The district court judge was well within his discretion in redacting the testimony read back to the jury, see United States v. Verduzco, 373 F.3d 1022, 1030 n. 3 (9th Cir.2004), and Barrow has not presented any evidence that the judge’s actions were prejudicial.

Finally, Barrow’s sentencing claim is moot in light of his release from federal custody. United States v. Tapia-Marquez, 361 F.3d 535, 537 (9th Cir.2004).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.