MEMORANDUM ***

Noe Munguia-Diaz appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 144-month sentence imposed following his bench-trial conviction for seven counts of distribution of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); and two counts of unlawful possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Munguia-Diaz contends that but for ineffective assistance of counsel during the plea bargain stage, he would have entered a plea agreement and received a less severe sentence. We decline to consider Munguia-Diaz’s claim of ineffective assistance on direct appeal because the record is not sufficiently developed to permit review, and counsel’s representation was not so inadequate that it obviously denied Munguia-Diaz his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. See United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 2011).

Munguia-Diaz also contends that his sentence should be vacated and the case remanded for resentencing in light of Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Because Munguiá-Diaz’s 144-month sentence is lower than the bottom of the new sentencing range, he is not eligible for a reduction. See U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(b)(2)(A) (the court shall not reduce a defendant’s term of imprisonment to a term that is less than the minimum of the amended guideline range).

AFFIRMED.