United States v. Martin H. Stanwood

21 F.3d 1118 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.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. Martin H. STANWOOD, Defendant-Appellant. No. 93-35528. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted April 5, 1994. * Decided April 13, 1994. Before: POOLE, BEEZER and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Martin H. Stanwood, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255 motion. Stanwood pled guilty to manufacturing marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841 (a)(1). He contends the district court erred by denying his claims that the searches leading to his arrest were unlawful and his counsel was ineffective. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255 . We review de novo, United States v. Angelone 894 F.2d 1129, 1130 (9th Cir.1990), and affirm. 3 A defendant who pleads guilty to a criminal charge may not subsequently seek relief on the basis of pre-plea constitutional violations. Hudson v. Moran, 760…