United States v. Serrano-Villa
This text of 310 F. App'x 140 (United States v. Serrano-Villa) 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
MEMORANDUM
Jorge Jesus Serrano-Villa appeals from his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and importation of methamphetamine and cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a) and 960(a)(1), (b)(1), and from his 235-month sentence. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Serrano-Villa contends that his counsel was ineffective because counsel: (1) advised Serrano-Villa to reject a plea agreement that would have resulted in a lower sentence; and (2) failed to object to the Presentence Report. We decline to review Serrano-Villa’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal because “the record on appeal is [not] sufficiently developed to permit review and determination of the issue,” and the legal representation was not so inadequate that it “obviously denie[d]” Serrano-Villa his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. See United States v. McKenna, 327 F.3d 830, 845 (9th Cir.2003); see also United States v. Jeronimo, 398 F.3d 1149, 1155 (9th Cir.2005).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
310 F. App'x 140, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-serrano-villa-ca9-2009.