United States v. Walter Eugene Smith, Aka: James Clifford Parham

95 F.3d 1160 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.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. Walter Eugene SMITH, aka: James Clifford Parham, Defendant-Appellant. No. 96-35186. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Aug. 12, 1996. * Decided Aug. 26, 1996. Before: BROWNING, SCHROEDER, and RYMER, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Walter Eugene Smith appeals pro se the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Smith contends that his guilty plea is invalid because the indictment fails to state an offense. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 , 2255. We review de novo, Sanchez v. United States, 50 F.3d 1448, 1451-52 (9th Cir.1995), and affirm. 3 Smith contends that the indictment states no offense because his counterfeit checks: 1) looked very different from genuine cashier's checks produced by the bank from which Smith's checks purportedly originated; and 2) indicated that they were drawn on a bank branch…