United States v. Noe Munguia-Diaz , 606 F. App'x 385 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 30 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-30032
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 4:13-cr-00080-TJH
v.
MEMORANDUM*
NOE MUNGUIA-DIAZ, a.k.a. Juan
Ernesto Medina-Munguia,
Defendant - Appellant.
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
*
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).
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.
2 14-30032