Men-Sing Loo v. United States

972 F.2d 1340 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Men-Sing LOO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee. No. 92-35019. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Aug. 24, 1992. * Decided Aug. 28, 1992. Before BRUNETTI, RYMER and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Men-Sing Loo appeals pro se the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence. Loo was convicted following a jury trial of conspiracy to distribute heroin, interstate travel in aid of racketeering, and distribution of heroin. Loo appealed, and this court affirmed the conviction. See United States v. Chan Yu-Chong, 920 F.2d 594 (9th Cir.1990). Loo challenges his conviction on the grounds that he was the victim of entrapment, and was denied effective assistance of counsel at trial. We review de novo, Norris v. Risley, 878 F.2d 1178, 1180 (9th Cir.1989), and affirm. 3 To demonstrate ineffective assistance of…