From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Munguia-Diaz

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Jun 30, 2015
606 F. App'x 385 (9th Cir. 2015)

Summary

applying § 1B1.10 to Amendment 782

Summary of this case from United States v. Gonzalez

Opinion

No. 14-30032

06-30-2015

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. NOE MUNGUIA-DIAZ, a.k.a. Juan Ernesto Medina-Munguia, Defendant - Appellant.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

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
Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

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.

Noe Munguia-Diaz appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 144-month sentence imposed following his bench-trial conviction 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.


Summaries of

United States v. Munguia-Diaz

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Jun 30, 2015
606 F. App'x 385 (9th Cir. 2015)

applying § 1B1.10 to Amendment 782

Summary of this case from United States v. Gonzalez

applying § 1B1.10 to Amendment 782

Summary of this case from United States v. Gonzalez-Rodriguez
Case details for

United States v. Munguia-Diaz

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. NOE MUNGUIA-DIAZ…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Jun 30, 2015

Citations

606 F. App'x 385 (9th Cir. 2015)

Citing Cases

United States v. Ortega-Rodriguez

Thus, defendant's request is inconsistent with USSG § 1B1.10(b)(2), and the court lacks the authority to…

United States v. Gonzalez-Rodriguez

The Ninth Circuit agrees with this interpretation. SeeUnited States v. Davis, 739 F.3d 1222, 1225–26 (9th…