Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel Francisco SANDOVAL-LOPEZ, a.k.a. Pedro Zafra, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-10-27
Citations: 456 F. App'x 640
Docket Number: No. 11-30032
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Miguel Francisco SANDOVAL-LOPEZ, a.k.a. Pedro Zafra, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 456
Pages: 640–641

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Miguel Francisco SANDOVAL-LOPEZ, a.k.a. Pedro Zafra, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 11-30032.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 25, 2011.
Filed Oct. 27, 2011.
Pamela Jackson Byerly, Assistant U.S., Matthew F. Duggan, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Karen Suzette Lindholdt, Spokane, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, 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
Miguel Francisco Sandoval-Lopez appeals from his jury conviction for being an alien in the United States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Sandoval-Lopez contends that his counsel was ineffective by failing to object to his appearance at trial in jail clothing. We decline to review this claim on direct appeal because the record is insufficiently developed and the legal representation was not so inadequate that it obviously denied Sandoval-Lopez his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. See United States v. Benford, 574 F.3d 1228, 1231 (9th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment without prejudice to Sandoval-Lopez raising this issue in a collateral attack on the conviction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.