Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Trent BARNES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-06-13
Citations: 234 F. App'x 591
Docket Number: No. 05-10577
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Michael Trent BARNES, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 234
Pages: 591–591

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Michael Trent BARNES, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-10577.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 5, 2007 .
Filed June 13, 2007.
Beverly Wee Sameshima, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Michael Barnes, Sheridan, OR, pro se.
Georgia K. McMillen, Esq., Wailuku Maui, HI, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: LEAVY, RYMER, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Michael Trent Barnes appeals from his guilty-plea conviction for cultivating more than 1,000 marijuana plants, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(C), and criminal forfeiture, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 853. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Barnes contends that his counsel during the proceedings in the district court had conflicts of interest that denied him effective assistance of counsel, in violation of the Sixth Amendment. Because the record is insufficiently developed, we decline to consider this claim on direct appeal. See United States v. Reyes-Platero, 224 F.3d 1112, 1116 (9th Cir.2000) (holding that sufficiently developed record is exception to general rule that ineffective assistance of counsel arguments are ordinarily inappropriate for direct review and should be brought in habeas corpus proceedings 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.