Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Esquivel MENDEZ, a.k.a. Alberto Perez-Lopez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-10-05
Citations: 452 F. App'x 739
Docket Number: No. 09-10372
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Esquivel MENDEZ, a.k.a. Alberto Perez-Lopez, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: HAWKINS, SILVERMAN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 452
Pages: 739–740

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Esquivel MENDEZ, a.k.a. Alberto Perez-Lopez, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-10372.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 27, 2011.
Filed Oct. 5, 2011.
Karen A. Escobar, Assistant U.S., USF-Offiee of the U.S. Attorney, Fresno, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Kathleen Coleen Page, Page & Page Attorneys at Law, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Jose Esquivel Mendez, pro se.
Before: HAWKINS, SILVERMAN, 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
Jose Esquivel Mendez appeals from his jury-trial conviction for various drug offenses and avoidance of examination by immigration officers. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Esquivel Mendez contends that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. Specifically, he contends that counsel failed to argue for the admissibility of testimony under either Fed.R.Evid. 803(3) or Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Hillmon, 145 U.S. 285, 12 S.Ct. 909, 36 L.Ed. 706 (1892), and that counsel failed to "preserve" the government's plea offer or determine when it expired. We decline to review this claim on direct appeal because there is neither a sufficiently developed record, nor evidence of such obvious denial of adequate representation, to warrant departure from the rule that claims of ineffective assistance are generally inappropriate on direct appeal and should be raised in habeas corpus proceedings. See United States v. McKenna, 327 F.3d 830, 845 (9th Cir.2003).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.