Lazaro-Alonzo
United States v. Lazaro-Alonzo
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM *
Benjamin Lazaro-Alonzo appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to reconsider a previous order declining to re-sentence him after a remand under United States v. Ameline. 1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.
The district court properly solicited the views of counsel before deciding whether to resentence Lazaro-Alonso. 2 Although Lazaro-Alonso’s counsel did not respond, the district court had enough information to conclude that Lazaro-Alonzo’s 70-month sentence would have been the same had the district court known that the Guidelines were advisory at the time of sentencing. 3 Thus, the district court was *666 well within its discretion to deny LazaroAlonso’s motion to reconsider.
We decline to reach the merits of Lazaro-Alonzo’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim. 5 The record is not adequately developed as to the explanations for defense counsel’s actions and what, if any, prejudice resulted. 6 Thus, Lazaro-Alonzo’s claim is more appropriate for collateral attack under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 .
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.