United States v. Charles Edward Fleming

Good Law
95 F.3d 1159·1996 WL 481621·1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 38277
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 23, 199695-56173California537 words

Opinion

Opinion

95 F.3d 1159 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.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. Charles Edward FLEMING, Defendant-Appellant. No. 95-56173. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Aug. 12, 1996. * Decided Aug. 23, 1996. Before: BROWNING, SCHROEDER and RYMER, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Charles Edward Fleming appeals the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Fleming contends that the district court erred by denying his § 2255 motion and his request for an evidentiary hearing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 , 2255 and we review de novo. Frazer v. United States, 18 F.3d 778, 781 (9th Cir.1994). We affirm. 3 Fleming contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel due to his trial counsel's failure to raise the issue of whether the methamphetamine related to his conviction was D-methamphetamine or L-methamphetamine. We disagree. 4 To prevail on an ineffective…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.