Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mario MURRIETA-RIVERA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-27
Citations: 401 F. App'x 252
Docket Number: No. 09-10170
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mario MURRIETA-RIVERA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 401
Pages: 252–252

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mario MURRIETA-RIVERA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-10170.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.
Filed Oct. 27, 2010.
Bruce M. Ferg, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Amy Krauss, Law Office of Amy B. Krauss, Tucson, AZ, 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
Mario Murrieta-Rivera appeals from the 77-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Murrieta-Rivera contends he received ineffective assistance of counsel when counsel: did not effectively communicate a plea offer; failed to argue for departures or for a third point reduction for acceptance of responsibility during sentencing; and failed to advocate on Murrieta-Riv-era's behalf. We decline to review Murrie-ta-Rivera's ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal because this is not one of the "unusual cases (1) where the record on appeal is sufficiently developed to permit determination of the issue[s], or (2) where the legal representation is so inadequate that it obviously denies a defendant his Sixth Amendment right to counsel." United States v. Jeronimo, 398 F.3d 1149, 1156 (9th Cir.2005).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.