United States of America v. David Paul Peters

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
DAVID PAUL PETERS,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-30384
D.C. No. 9:09-cr-00023-DWM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Donald W. Molloy, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 19, 2010**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
David Paul Peters appeals from his 262-month sentence imposed following
his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute heroin,
in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(B) and 846. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
OCT 29 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-30384 2
Peters contends that his counsel was ineffective by failing to challenge the
district court’s finding that the conspiracy started in 2005, giving rise to a career
offender designation that led to a higher advisory guidelines range. Although we
generally do not address claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct
review, we can consider the merits where the record on appeal is sufficiently
developed to permit determination of the issue. See United States v. Alferahin, 433
F.3d 1148, 1160-61 n.6 (9th Cir. 2006). The record reflects that Peters’s counsel
was not deficient, nor was Peters prejudiced by any possibly deficient
performance. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --