Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gordon GOBI, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-29
Citations: 402 F. App'x 224
Docket Number: No. 08-50480
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gordon GOBI, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 402
Pages: 224–225

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gordon GOBI, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-50480.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.
Filed Oct. 29, 2010.
Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Julie Werner-Simon, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Eric Vandevelde, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Mark Eibert, Esquire, Half Moon Bay, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Gordon Goei appeals from his jury trial conviction and 41-month sentence for wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343; evasion of income tax, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201; and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Goei contends that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel when his trial attorney failed to present a defense, failed to present any witnesses, failed to cross examine two witnesses, and failed to offer any proposed jury instructions. We decline to review these claims on direct appeal as the record is insufficiently developed and the legal representation was not so inadequate that it obviously denied Goei his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. See United States v. Benford, 574 F.3d 1228, 1231 (9th Cir.2009).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.