
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jorge Jesus SERRANO-VILLA, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 06-10093.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 13, 2009 .
    Filed Jan. 23, 2009.
    Joelyn D. Marlowe, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Ralph Malanga, Esquire, Malanga Law Office, Bisbee, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    
      Before: O’SCANNLAIN, BYBEE, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jorge Jesus Serrano-Villa appeals from his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and importation of methamphetamine and cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a) and 960(a)(1), (b)(1), and from his 235-month sentence. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Serrano-Villa contends that his counsel was ineffective because counsel: (1) advised Serrano-Villa to reject a plea agreement that would have resulted in a lower sentence; and (2) failed to object to the Presentence Report. We decline to review Serrano-Villa’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal because “the record on appeal is [not] sufficiently developed to permit review and determination of the issue,” and the legal representation was not so inadequate that it “obviously denie[d]” Serrano-Villa his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. See United States v. McKenna, 327 F.3d 830, 845 (9th Cir.2003); see also United States v. Jeronimo, 398 F.3d 1149, 1155 (9th Cir.2005).

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