Mendoza

MEMORANDUM *

Jose David Mendoza appeals his conviction for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and 841, and for possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 . We affirm. The facts are familiar to the parties, so we will not recount them here except as necessary to explain our decision.

I. Ineffective assistance of counsel

As a general rule, we do not consider ineffective assistance claims on direct appeal, because such claims typically require development of facts outside the record. United States v. Karterman, 60 F.3d 576, 579 (9th Cir.1995). We may, however, consider such claims where the record is sufficiently complete to allow us to decide the issue. United States v. Oplinger, 150 F.3d 1061, 1071 (9th Cir.1998).

This is not such a case. To prevail, Mendoza would have to show both that some action or omission by his counsel fell outside the wide range of professional competence and that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80…