United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Carlos Barron, Defendant-appellant, 985 F.2d 574 (9th Cir. 1993)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Carlos Barron appeals his conviction, following a guilty plea, for possession with intent to distribute marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1). Barron contends that (1) the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress the evidence seized from his vehicle, and (2) he received ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Barron claims that the district court erred by denying his suppression motion because the border patrol agents lacked reasonable suspicion for the stop. Alternatively, Barron contends that he did not voluntarily consent to the search. We do not address these claims because Barron did not enter a conditional guilty plea preserving his right to appeal the adverse ruling. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(a) (2); see also United States v. Carrasco, 786 F.2d 1452, 1454-55 (9th Cir. 1986) (declining to review denial of suppression motion where defendant failed to enter a conditional guilty plea).

Anticipating our holding, Barron contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to preserve his right to appeal the suppression motion.

Generally, "we will not review challenges to the effectiveness of defense counsel on direct appeal. Such an issue is more appropriately reserved for habeas corpus proceedings, where facts outside the record, but necessary to the disposition of the claim, may be fully developed." United States v. Laughlin, 933 F.2d 786, 788 (9th Cir. 1991) (citations omitted); accord United States v. Daly, 974 F.2d 1215, 1218 (9th Cir. 1992).

Here, the record lacks facts necessary to properly address Barron's claim on direct appeal. See Daly, 974 F.2d at 1218. Accordingly, we decline to address his claim. See id.; Laughlin, 933 F.2d at 789.

AFFIRMED.