United States v. Edgar Fuller

97 F.3d 1461 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.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. Edgar FULLER, Defendant-Appellant. No. 95-55989. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Sept. 10, 1996. * Decided Sept. 12, 1996. Before: FLETCHER, BRUNETTI, and JOHN T. NOONAN, Jr., Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Edgar Fuller appeals pro se the district court's denial of his second 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Fuller contends that: 1) his conviction constitutes double jeopardy based on a previous administrative forfeiture; 2) he was denied the services of an expert witness at trial; 3) the government failed to disclose discovery under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963); 4) he was the subject of selective prosecution; 5) he is entitled to a downward departure based on U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2 ("safety valve provision"); and 6) the district court failed to hold an evidentiary hearing or appoint counsel. We review de novo a district court's…