Court Opinion

ID: 9389986
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-26 17:01:08.684529+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:30.983843
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        APR 26 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No.    22-10147

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 4:19-cr-00471-HSG-1

 v.

RINGO BUFFIN, AKA Lamar Buffin, AKA MEMORANDUM*
Raymond Buffin, AKA Richard Buffin,
AKA Ringo Buffin, AKA Ringo Lamar
Buffin, AKA Ringo Lee Buffin, AKA Robert
Lee Buffin, AKA Larry Duffin, AKA Eric
Jackson, AKA Richard Nelon, AKA Richard
Nelson, AKA Richard Lee Nelson, AKA
Arthur White,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of California
                 Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted April 17, 2023**

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Before:        CLIFTON, R. NELSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

      Ringo Buffin appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the

112-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession

with intent to distribute, and distribution of, cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we

affirm.

      Buffin contends that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by

failing to request a psychiatric evaluation and by failing to argue at sentencing that

Buffin’s mental illness was a mitigating factor. We decline to address this claim

because we agree with the government that it is not amenable to review on direct

appeal. See United States v. McGowan, 668 F.3d 601, 605 (9th Cir. 2012)

(explaining that ineffective assistance of counsel claims are reviewed on direct

appeal only where the record is sufficiently developed or the legal representation

was so obviously inadequate that it denied a defendant his Sixth Amendment right

to counsel).

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                     22-10147