United States v. Kurtis Lee Bristow

76 F.3d 389 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.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. Kurtis Lee BRISTOW, Defendant-Appellant. No. 95-55498. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Jan. 23, 1996. * Decided Jan. 26, 1996. Before: ALARCON, HALL, and BRUNETTI, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Kurtis Bristow appeals pro se the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Bristow's appeal raises a single claim which the district court rejected after considering the merits: 1) that Bristow received ineffective assistance of counsel. Furthermore, Bristow's appeal raises two claims which the district court considered waived: 2) that his sentence was improperly enhanced under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) for possession of a firearm; and 3) the amount of methamphetamine attributed to Bristow at sentencing was erroneous. Additionally, Bristow raises two claims for the first time on appeal: 4) that the district court erred by…