United States v. Howard Weisbrod

15 F.3d 1094 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.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. Howard WEISBROD, Defendant-Appellant. No. 92-16297. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and submitted May 12, 1993. Decided Dec. 7, 1993. 1 Before BROWNING and CANBY, Circuit Judges, and KELLEHER, * District Judge. 2 MEMORANDUM ** 3 Howard Weisbrod appeals the district court's denial of his motion under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2255 to correct or vacate his sentence. Weisbrod claims (1) his conviction in California violates the Double Jeopardy Clause because it is predicated on the same conduct as his conviction in New York; (2) the government violated his plea agreement; and (3) he received ineffective assistance of counsel insofar as his attorney failed to raise the double jeopardy issue, or the plea agreement issue. 4 The district court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2255 . We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2253 . The appeal is timely, and…