Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Paul PETERS, 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 217
Docket Number: No. 09-30384
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. David Paul PETERS, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 402
Pages: 217–217

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. David Paul PETERS, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 09-30384.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.
Filed Oct. 29, 2010.
Carl E. Rostad, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Great Falls, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Lucas J. Foust, Esquire, Foust Law Office, P.C., Bozeman, MT, 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
David Paul Peters appeals from his 262-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B) and 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Peters contends that his counsel was ineffective by failing to challenge the district court's finding that the conspiracy started in 2005, giving rise to a career offender designation that led to a higher advisory guidelines range. Although we generally do not address claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct review, we can consider the merits where the record on appeal is sufficiently developed to permit determination of the issue. See United States v. Alferahin, 433 F.3d 1148, 1160-61 n. 6 (9th Cir.2006). The record reflects that Peters's counsel was not deficient, nor was Peters prejudiced by any possibly deficient performance. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.