United States v. Darlington Edo Idiado

70 F.3d 1281 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.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. Darlington Edo IDIADO, Defendant-Appellant. No. 94-16938. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Nov. 20, 1995. * Decided Nov. 24, 1995. Before: PREGERSON, NORRIS, and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Darlington Idiado appeals pro se the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255 motion. Idiado's appeal raises two claims which were rejected by the district court: 1) that the initial stop by customs agents and the referral to secondary inspection were not based upon reasonable suspicion; and 2) that the district court erred in failing to treat Idiado as a minor participant. Furthermore, Idiado's appeal raises two claims which he unsuccessfully attempted to raise before the district court: 1 3) that the district court failed to determine the exact quantity of heroin that could have been reasonably foreseeable to Idiado; and 4)…