United States v. Martin Vincente M. Patino

89 F.3d 847 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.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-Appellant, v. Martin Vincente M. PATINO, Defendant-Appellee. No. 95-30041. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted April 30, 1996. * Decided May 3, 1996. Before: BROWNING, REINHARDT, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Martin Vincente M. Patino appeals his sentence 1 following a guilty plea to distributing heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1). Patino contends that the district court erred by denying him a two-point downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility, under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a), and that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing. We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (a), 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and affirm. 3 Patino failed to object to the presentence report's determination that he did not accept responsibility. In fact, when the district court inquired about the acceptance of…