United States v. David Lee Dahlheim

29 F.3d 635 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.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. David Lee DAHLHEIM, Defendant-Appellant. No. 93-30275. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted July 13, 1994. * Decided July 19, 1994. 1 Before: TANG and WIGGINS, Circuit Judges, and HENDERSON, ** District Judge 2 MEMORANDUM *** 3 David Lee Dahlheim was sentenced under the Sentencing Guidelines as a career offender. Dahlheim argues that the district court erred by denying him the opportunity to attack collaterally his prior state conviction. (In fact, the district court did permit the collateral attack, but found the challenge to be without merit.) Dahlheim contends that the prior state conviction was invalid because the underlying indictment was defective. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 . We affirm. FACTS AND PRIOR PROCEEDINGS 4 On December 5, 1989, Dahlheim pleaded guilty in Oregon state court to first-degree burglary and…