United States v. Jun Alindog

67 F.3d 309 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.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. Jun ALINDOG, Defendant-Appellant. No. 94-15620. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Sept. 18, 1995. * Decided Sept. 22, 1995. Before: GOODWIN, WIGGINS, and O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Jun Alindog appeals pro se the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255 motion. Alindog contends that the district court erred at sentencing by imposing a two-level adjustment to his offense level for being an organizer or manager. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1291 , 2255. We review the denial of a Sec. 2255 motion de novo, Frazer v. United States, 18 F.3d 778, 781 (9th Cir.1994), and we affirm. 3 Alindog first claims that the district court sentenced him based upon false or unreliable statements. "The use of hearsay 4 Alindog also claims that the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate that he was a leader or supervisor,…