United States of America v. Mario Murrieta-Rivera

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
MARIO MURRIETA-RIVERA,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-10170
D.C. No. 4:08-CR-01107-RCC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Raner C. Collins, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 19, 2010**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Mario Murrieta-Rivera appeals from the 77-month sentence imposed
following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation, in
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and
we affirm.
FILED
OCT 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-10170 2
Murrieta-Rivera contends he received ineffective assistance of counsel when
counsel: did not effectively communicate a plea offer; failed to argue for
departures or for a third point reduction for acceptance of responsibility during
sentencing; and failed to advocate on Murrieta-Rivera’s behalf. We decline to
review Murrieta-Rivera’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal
because this is not one of the “unusual cases (1) where the record on appeal is
sufficiently developed to permit determination of the issue[s], or (2) where the
legal representation is so inadequate that it obviously denies a defendant his Sixth
Amendment right to counsel.” United States v. Jeronimo, 398 F.3d 1149, 1156
(9th Cir. 2005).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --