United States v. Jose Birrueta

MEMORANDUM

Jose Birrueta appeals his convictions for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1) and (b)(1)(B), and for possession of an unregistered firearm under 26 U.S.C. §§ 5841 , 5845, 5861(d), and 5871. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . Reviewing Birrueta’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel de novo, United States v. Labrada-Bustamante, 428 F.3d 1252, 1260 (9th Cir.2005), we affirm without prejudice to collateral review.

Birrueta claims that his trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to file a motion to suppress evidence from a war-rantless search of a shed that Birrueta leased from his neighbor.' However, we generally do not review an ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal, except under narrow circumstances. See United States v. McKenna, 327 F.3d 830, 845 (9th Cir.2003) (stating that “[cjlaims of ineffective assistance of counsel are generally inappropriate on direct appeal” and should normally be raised in habeas corpus proceedings). The two exceptions to this rule are “(1) when the record on appeal is sufficiently developed to permit review and determination of the issue, or (2) when…