
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Uriel MIRANDA-OREGEL, a.k.a. Arturo Garcia, a.k.a. Juan Jose Juarez, a.k.a. Pedro Vargas, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-10315.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 15, 2012.
    
    Filed May 21, 2012.
    
      Michele Myers Beckwith, USSAC—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Arturo Garcia, Krista Hart, Law Offices of Krista Hart, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Uriel Miranda-Oregel appeals from the 77-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Miranda-Oregel contends that the district court erred by not awarding him a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. See U.S.S.G. § 3El.l(a). The district court did not clearly err in finding that Miranda-Oregel had not accepted responsibility for his offense, because the record reflects that he did not demonstrate contrition and that his conduct manifesting acceptance of responsibility was untimely. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 cmt. n. 1(H); United States v. Nielsen, 371 F.3d 574, 582 (9th Cir.2004) (“To receive the two-point downward adjustment, a defendant must at least show contrition or remorse.”).

We decline to consider on direct appeal Miranda-Oregel’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, because the record is insufficiently developed and his legal representation was not so inadequate that we can now conclude he obviously was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. See United States v. McKenna, 327 F.3d 830, 845 (9th Cir.2003) (“Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are generally inappropriate on direct appeal.”).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     