
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Manuel GUDINO-SIERRA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-10605.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted June 18, 2013.
    
    Filed June 24, 2013.
    Patrick Michael Walsh, Assistant U.S., Robert Lawrence Ellman, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Adam Mcmeen Flake, Assistant U.S., Michael Anthony Humphreys, Assistant U.S., USLV-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Todd M. Leventhal, Esquire, Special Counsel, Leventhal and Associates, Las Vegas, NV, 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

Manuel Gudino-Sierra appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(l)(A)(viii), and 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Gudino-Sierra contends that he received ineffective assistance from his trial counsel in relation to plea negotiations. “Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are generally inappropriate on direct appeal.” United States v. McKenna, 327 F.3d 830, 845 (9th Cir.2003). Contrary to Gudino-Sierra’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.
     