The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
15-30247•United States of America v. Terry Michael Croff
15-30247Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAug 23, 2016
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
TERRY MICHAEL CROFF,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-30247
D.C. No. 4:15-cr-00011-BMM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Brian M. Morris, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 16, 2016**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Terry Michael Croff appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 132-month sentence for conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm, but remand to correct
FILED
AUG 23 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
-- 1 of 2 --
the judgment.
Croff contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because
counsel failed to secure a more favorable plea agreement from the government and
failed to make a number of arguments during the sentencing hearing. Contrary to
Croff’s contention, the record does not permit us to consider this claim 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).
We remand to the district court with instructions that it correct the judgment
to reflect that Croff was convicted of violating 21 U.S.C. § 846, rather than 18
U.S.C. § 846 as currently stated in the judgment. See United States v. Herrera-
Blanco, 232 F.3d 715, 719 (9th Cir. 2000) (remanding sua sponte to correct the
judgment).
AFFIRMED; REMANDED to correct the judgment.
15-30247 2
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.