United States v. Francisco Ochoa-Anaya

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedSeptember 17, 2021
Docket20-10402
StatusUnpublished

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.

Bluebook
United States v. Francisco Ochoa-Anaya, (9th Cir. 2021).

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 17 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT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

United States v. Rahman
642 F.3d 1257 (Ninth Circuit, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Francisco Ochoa-Anaya, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-francisco-ochoa-anaya-ca9-2021.