Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cesar CORTEZ-ESTRADA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-07-19
Citations: 235 F. App'x 446
Docket Number: No. 06-10587
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cesar CORTEZ-ESTRADA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 235
Pages: 446–447

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cesar CORTEZ-ESTRADA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-10587.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 9, 2007.
Filed July 19, 2007.
James T. Lacey, Ausa, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Clayton R. Hernandez, Esq., Law Offices of Clay Hernandez, PC, Tucson, AZ, for Defendani>-Appellant.
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Cesar Cortez-Estrada appeals from his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(l)(B)(vii), and assault on a federal officer with a dangerous weapon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111(a), and enhanced by 18 U.S.C. § 111(b). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Cortez-Estrada contends that his guilty plea to the assault claim was not knowing and voluntary because of ineffective assistance of counsel. Because the record is insufficiently developed, we decline to consider this claim on direct appeal. See United States v. Reyes-Platero, 224 F.3d 1112, 1116 (9th Cir.2000).
Cortez-Estrada also contends that his guilty plea for assault on a federal officer with a dangerous weapon was not knowingly made because he did not understand the elements of the charge of assaulting a federal officer. We hold that he was informed of the crime's elements and that the plea was therefore valid. See Brad shaw v. Stumpf, 545 U.S. 175, 183, 125 S.Ct. 2398, 162 L.Ed.2d 143 (2005).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.