United States v. Lino Ray Mitchell

988 F.2d 124 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lino Ray MITCHELL, Defendant-Appellant. No. 92-30170. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Feb. 5, 1993. * Decided Feb. 10, 1993. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho; No. CR-91-071-01-EJL, Edward J. Lodge, District Judge, Presiding. D.Idaho AFFIRMED. Before TANG, KOZINSKI and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 I. Defendant Lino Ray Mitchell contends he was denied effective assistance of counsel when his lawyer failed to file a timely motion to suppress evidence. To prevail on this claim, he must show that (1) "counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness," Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 (1984), and (2) "there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different," id. at 694 . 3 The…