Saulo Cortez Rendon v. United States

892 F.2d 1046 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Saulo Cortez RENDON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee. No. 89-55032. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Sept. 1, 1989. * Decided Dec. 14, 1989. 1 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Richard A. Gadbois, Jr., District Judge, Presiding. 2 MEMORANDUM ** 3 Rendon appeals the district court's order denying his motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 , without an evidentiary hearing. He alleged that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his attorney (1) failed to move to strike references to a dismissed charge from a presentence report; and (2) failed to prosecute an appeal. We review de novo denial of a defendant's petition to vacate sentence. United States v. Quan, 789 F.2d 711, 713 (9th Cir.1986). 4 When a § 2255 motion is made, an evidentiary hearing must be granted "unless…