United States of America v. Nilesh Bharatkumar Kumar

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
NILESH BHARATKUMAR KUMAR,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 10-50227
D.C. No. 8:09-cr-00132-RGK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 18, 2013**
Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Nilesh Bharatkumar Kumar appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to use and possess counterfeit
access devices, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(b)(2). We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
JUN 24 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-50227 2
Kumar contends that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary because
he received ineffective assistance from trial counsel, who failed properly to advise
him about the immigration consequences of his guilty plea. “Claims of ineffective
assistance of counsel are generally inappropriate on direct appeal.” See United
States v. McKenna, 327 F.3d 830, 845 (9th Cir. 2003). Contrary to Kumar’s
contention, the record on appeal is not sufficiently developed to evaluate the
effectiveness of trial counsel. See id.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --