Ronald J. Dupard v. United States

993 F.2d 882 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Ronald J. DUPARD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee. No. 92-35462. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted May 6, 1992. * Decided May 12, 1993. Before SKOPIL, ALARCON and BEEZER, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Ronald J. Dupard appeals pro se the district court's denial of his habeas petition. His primary contentions are that the district court erred by rejecting his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and by refusing to conduct an evidentiary hearing. His remaining issues are raised for the first time on this appeal and will not be considered. DISCUSSION 1. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel 3 To establish ineffective representation, Dupard must show that (1) his attorney's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness; and (2) the deficient performance prejudiced his defense. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). He…