United States of America v. Adalberto Guzman-Siu

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
ADALBERTO GUZMAN-SIU,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 10-30159
D.C. No. 3:09-cr-05830-RJB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Robert J. Bryan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 21, 2011**
Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Adalberto Guzman-Siu appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and
97-month aggregate sentence for possession with intent to distribute heroin and
cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C), and possession of
firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A).
FILED
NOV 28 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-30159 2
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Guzman-Siu’s counsel has
filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw
as counsel of record.
In his pro se supplemental brief, Guzman-Siu contends that he is actually
innocent of the firearms offense and also asserts an ineffective assistance of
counsel claim.
Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75, 80-81 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. With
respect to the appeal of the conviction and sentence, we dismiss in light of the
valid appeal waiver. See United States v. Nguyen, 235 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.
2000). We decline to address Guzman-Siu’s claim of ineffective assistance of
counsel on direct appeal as the record is insufficiently developed and his legal
representation was not so inadequate that it can be concluded at this point that he
obviously was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. See United States v.
McKenna, 327 F.3d 830, 845 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Claims of ineffective assistance of
counsel are generally inappropriate on direct appeal.”).
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --