
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nilesh Bharatkumar KUMAR, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-50227.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 18, 2013.
    
    Filed June 24, 2013.
    Monica Mange, Assistant U.S., Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Michael Vincent Severo, Sr., Law Offices of Michael V. Severo, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    
      Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Nilesh Bharatkumar Kumar appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to use and possess counterfeit access devices, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(b)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Kumar contends that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary because he received ineffective assistance from trial counsel, who failed properly to advise him about the immigration consequences of his guilty plea. “Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are generally inappropriate on direct appeal.” See United States v. McKenna, 327 F.3d 830, 845 (9th Cir. 2003). Contrary to Kumar’s contention, the record on appeal is not sufficiently developed to evaluate the effectiveness of trial counsel. See id.

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