United States of America v. Noe Munguia-Diaz, a.k.a. Juan Ernesto Medina-Munguia

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
NOE MUNGUIA-DIAZ, a.k.a. Juan
Ernesto Medina-Munguia,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 14-30032
D.C. No. 4:13-cr-00080-TJH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
Terry J. Hatter, Jr., District Judge, Presiding**
Submitted June 22, 2015***
Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Noe Munguia-Diaz appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 144-month sentence imposed following his bench-trial conviction
FILED
JUN 30 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The Honorable Terry J. Hatter, Jr., Senior United States District Judge
for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.
*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

for seven counts of distribution of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1); and two counts of unlawful possession of a firearm, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we
affirm.
Munguia-Diaz contends that but for ineffective assistance of counsel during
the plea bargain stage, he would have entered a plea agreement and received a less
severe sentence. We decline to consider Munguia-Diaz’s claim of ineffective
assistance on direct appeal because the record is not sufficiently developed to
permit review, and counsel’s representation was not so inadequate that it obviously
denied Munguia-Diaz his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. See United States v.
Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 2011).
Munguia-Diaz also contends that his sentence should be vacated and the
case remanded for resentencing in light of Amendment 782 to the Sentencing
Guidelines. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Because Munguia-Diaz’s 144-month
sentence is lower than the bottom of the new sentencing range, he is not eligible for
a reduction. See U.S.S.G.§ 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) (the court shall not reduce a
defendant’s term of imprisonment to a term that is less than the minimum of the
amended guideline range).
AFFIRMED.
14-30032 2

-- 2 of 2 --