United States v. Francisco Ochoa-Anaya
This text of United States v. Francisco Ochoa-Anaya (United States v. Francisco Ochoa-Anaya) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 17 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 20-10402
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 1:19-cr-00211-DAD-SKO-1 v.
FRANCISCO JAVIER OCHOA-ANAYA, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 14, 2021**
Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Francisco Javier Ochoa-Anaya appeals from the district court’s judgment
and challenges the 312-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea
conviction for conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance, in violation of 21
U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846, and possession of firearms in furtherance
* 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). Ochoa-Anaya’s request for oral argument is, therefore, denied. of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Ochoa-Anaya contends that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance by
failing to challenge adequately his two-level Guidelines enhancement for using a
personal relationship to involve another person in drug trafficking, pursuant to
U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(16)(A). We decline to consider this claim on direct appeal
because the record is insufficiently developed and it is not obvious that Ochoa-
Anaya was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. See United States v.
Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 2011). Ochoa-Anaya may raise this
claim in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding. See id. at 1260.
AFFIRMED.
2 20-10402
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
United States v. Francisco Ochoa-Anaya, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-francisco-ochoa-anaya-ca9-2021.