United States of America, Plaintiff-Appelle v. Robert Lutz

64 F.3d 667 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.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-Appelle, v. Robert LUTZ, Defendant-Appellant. No. 94-16919. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted July 17, 1995. * Decided July 20, 1995. 1 Before: FLETCHER, KOZINSKI, and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges 2 MEMORANDUM ** 3 Robert Lutz appeals pro se the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255 motion. Lutz contends that (1) the district court violated the Ex Post Facto Clause and the Due Process Clause by allegedly misapplying the Sentencing Guidelines; (2) the district court erred by denying his Sec. 2255 motion without an evidentiary hearing; and (3) the district court violated his due process rights by failing to rule on his motion for appointment of counsel or for an extension of time to file a reply brief before denying his Sec. 2255 motion. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255 . After a de novo review, we affirm. See United States v. Roberts,…