United States v. Joseph Calles

77 F.3d 490 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.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. Joseph CALLES, Defendant-Appellant. No. 95-15663. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Feb. 7, 1996. * Decided Feb. 20, 1996. Before: PREGERSON, CANBY, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Federal prisoner Joseph Calles appeals the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Calles contends that: (1) his counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge a defective indictment; (2) the district court erred by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on his § 2255 motion; and (3) this court should review the record for error under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 , 2255. We review de novo, Sanchez v. United States, 50 F.3d 1448, 1451 (9th Cir.1995), and affirm. 3 In order to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a defendant must show…