United States v. Artem Bautista David

39 F.3d 1189 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.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. Artem Bautista DAVID, Defendant-Appellant. No. 94-15521. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Nov. 1, 1994. * Nov. 8, 1994. Before: WALLACE, Chief Judge, GOODWIN and NORRIS, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Federal prisoner Artem B. David appeals pro se the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255 motion to vacate his sentence imposed following his jury conviction for operating a continuing criminal enterprise, in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 848 . David claims that he was denied: (1) his Sixth Amendment rights to effective assistance of trial counsel and appellate counsel; and (2) his Fifth Amendment right to due process pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). In addition, David claims that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion for an evidentiary hearing based on those two issues. We have…