
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Daniel AMAYA-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 05-50637.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 11, 2006.
    
    Filed Sept. 14, 2006.
    U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Shakti Murthy, Esq., Santa Monica, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: PREGERSON, T.G. NELSON, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Daniel Amaya-Rodriguez appeals from his conviction and 48-month sentence imposed following a guilty plea to being an illegal alien found in the United States after having been deported, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

We decline to review Amaya-Rodriguez’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim because such claims are generally inappropriate on direct appeal. See United States v. McKenna, 327 F.3d 830, 845 (9th Cir.2003) (stating that ineffective assistance of counsel is more properly raised on collateral attack under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, unless the record is sufficiently developed or there is an obvious denial of adequate representation).

Amaya-Rodriguez’s contention regarding Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), is foreclosed. See United States v. Weiland, 420 F.3d 1062, 1079 n. 16 (9th Cir.2005); see also United States v. Beng-Salazar, 452 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th Cir.2006) (rejecting after Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 125 S.Ct. 1254, 161 L.Ed.2d 205 (2005), the specific contention that a section 1326(b) enhancement cannot be applied where the defendant did not admit the prior conviction during a guilty plea).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     