United States of America v. RINGO BUFFIN, AKA Lamar Buffin, AKA Raymond Buffin, AKA Richard Buffin, AKA Ringo…

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
RINGO BUFFIN, AKA Lamar Buffin, AKA
Raymond Buffin, AKA Richard Buffin,
AKA Ringo Buffin, AKA Ringo Lamar
Buffin, AKA Ringo Lee Buffin, AKA Robert
Lee Buffin, AKA Larry Duffin, AKA Eric
Jackson, AKA Richard Nelon, AKA Richard
Nelson, AKA Richard Lee Nelson, AKA
Arthur White,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 22-10147
D.C. No. 4:19-cr-00471-HSG-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 17, 2023**
* 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).
FILED
APR 26 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-10147
Before: CLIFTON, R. NELSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Ringo Buffin appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the
112-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession
with intent to distribute, and distribution of, cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we
affirm.
Buffin contends that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by
failing to request a psychiatric evaluation and by failing to argue at sentencing that
Buffin’s mental illness was a mitigating factor. We decline to address this claim
because we agree with the government that it is not amenable to review on direct
appeal. See United States v. McGowan, 668 F.3d 601, 605 (9th Cir. 2012)
(explaining that ineffective assistance of counsel claims are reviewed on direct
appeal only where the record is sufficiently developed or the legal representation
was so obviously inadequate that it denied a defendant his Sixth Amendment right
to counsel).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --