FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 23 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Nos. 10-30246
10-30239
Plaintiff - Appellee,
D.C. Nos. 1:07-cr-00101-RFC
v. 1:06-cr-00085-RFC
MARK ANDREW CHRISTENSEN, MEMORANDUM *
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Richard F. Cebull, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Mark Andrew Christensen appeals from the sentence imposed following
remand. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Christensen contends that the district court erred by failing to sua sponte
order an inquiry “to determine whether Christensen’s relationship with his lawyer
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
had deteriorated to the point where appointment of new counsel on re-sentencing
was required.” Christensen’s claims lack merit because the cases he cites discuss
situations wherein a defendant made a request or motion for new counsel. See
Cooke v. Schriro, 538 F.3d 1000, 1016 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing United States v.
Robinson, 913 F.2d 712, 716 (9th Cir. 1990)).
To the extent that Christensen is raising an ineffective assistance of counsel
claim on direct appeal, “[h]ere, the record is not sufficiently developed and
[Christensen’s] counsel was not so inadequate as to obviously deny [Christensen’s]
Sixth Amendment right to counsel. We therefore decline to consider
[Christensen’s] claims of ineffective assistance on direct appeal.” See United
States v. Sager, 227 F.3d 1138, 1149 (9th Cir. 2000).
AFFIRMED.
2 10-30246