United States v. Arthur Payton

76 F.3d 390 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.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. Arthur PAYTON, Defendant-Appellant. No. 95-55598. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Jan. 9, 1996. * Decided Jan. 17, 1996. Before: SNEED, HALL, and BRUNETTI, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Arthur D. Payton, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his conviction and 120-month sentence, imposed following his jury conviction for armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (a) & (d). Payton contends the district court erred by failing to grant an evidentiary hearing on his ineffective assistance of counsel claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 , 2255. We review de novo the denial of a § 2255 motion, and for an abuse of discretion the denial of an evidentiary hearing. See Frazer v. United States, 18 F.3d 778, 781 (9th Cir.1994).…