United States v. Tom Arvid Nelson

66 F.3d 337 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.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. Tom Arvid NELSON, Defendant-Appellant. No. 94-56178. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Sept. 5, 1995. * Decided Sept. 8, 1995. Before: GOODWIN, WIGGINS, and O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Tom Arvid Nelson appeals pro se the denial of his motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255 . The district court concluded that Nelson's sentencing claims were procedurally barred, and in the alternative, were meritless. We have jurisdiction and review de novo. Grady v. United States, 929 F.2d 468, 470 (9th Cir.1991). We affirm. 3 In United States v. Schlesinger, 49 F.3d 483, 485 (9th Cir.1995), we held that "nonconstitutional sentencing errors that have not been raised on direct appeal have been waived and generally may not be reviewed by way of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255 ." We emphasized that nonconstitutional claims "are waived,…