Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antoni Damian PERALTA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-21
Citations: 384 F. App'x 688
Docket Number: No. 09-30075
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antoni Damian PERALTA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 384
Pages: 688–688

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antoni Damian PERALTA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-30075.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 25, 2010.
Filed June 21, 2010.
James Barkeley, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Erin Elizabeth White, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Anchorage, AK, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Linda Anna Webb, Hagans, Ahearn & Webb, Anchorage, AK, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, 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
Antoni Damian Peralta appeals from the 57-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a felon in possession of firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). We dismiss based on the valid appeal waiver.
Peralta contends the district court did not properly weigh the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 sentencing factors. We decline to reach this contention in light of Peralta's appeal waiver of his conviction and sentence. See United States v. Bibler, 495 F.3d 621, 623-24 (9th Cir.2007).
Peralta argues that he did not knowingly and voluntarily waive his right to appeal because his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by, among other things, failing to accurately anticipate the applicable range under the Guidelines, and by failing to discuss a fingerprint report during sentencing. However, the record in this case is not sufficiently developed to evaluate Peralta's ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal. See United States v. Jeronimo, 398 F.3d 1149, 1154-56 (9th Cir.2005).
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.