
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Melvin FLORES-ORTIZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-10404.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 22, 2015.
    
    Field June 25, 2015.
    Michael Richard Perez-Lizano, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
    Dan W. Montgomery, Law Office of Dan Montgomery, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant Appellant.
    Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Melvin Flores-Ortiz appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 18-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted exportation of a firearm and magazines, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 554. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Flores-Ortiz contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed properly to explain his plea deal. Contrary to Flores-Ortiz’s contention, the record does not permit us to consider his ineffective assistance argument on direct appeal. See United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1259-60 (9th Cir.2011) (this court reviews ineffective assistance claims on direct appeal only where the record is sufficiently developed or inadequate representation is obvious). Flores-Ortiz may pursue this claim through a motion 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.
     