Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tony NIXON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-07-17
Citations: 693 F. App'x 672
Docket Number: No. 15-10461
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tony NIXON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 693
Pages: 672–672

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tony NIXON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-10461
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 11, 2017
Filed July 17, 2017
Lauren G. LaBuff, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USTU-Office of the US Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Rosemary Gordon Panuco, Attorney, Law Office of Rosemary Gordon Panuco, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant
Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, 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
Tony Nixon appeals his bench-trial conviction and 18-month sentence for one count of conspiracy to transport illegal aliens for the purpose of financial gain, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(l)(A)(v)(I), (a)(l)(A)(ii), and (a)(1)(B)®, and two counts of transportation of illegal aliens for profit, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(l)(A)(ii) and (a)(1)(B)®. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Nixon contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. He has not shown that his counsel was constitutionally ineffective. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) (to establish that counsel was constitutionally ineffective, defendant must show that counsel performed deficiently and that "there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.