Arteaga

MEMORANDUM *

Jose Fernando Arteaga appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 habeas petition. We hold that the prosecutor did not commit misconduct, either at trial or on appeal, by arguing that Unit 10 was Arteaga’s residence. We also hold that Arteaga’s lawyers did not render ineffective assistance by failing to object to the prosecutor’s characterizations. We therefore affirm.

To establish that Arteaga had possession of the Western Union receipts, the government introduced evidence at trial to show that Arteaga resided in Unit 10 at least on a part-time basis. The most important evidence was the testimony of the landlord, Crosby, who stated that Arteaga lived in Unit 10 off and on. When asked directly if Arteaga resided in Unit 10, Crosby responded, ‘Yes, sir.” The government also introduced other less probative evidence, including a court receipt addressed to Arteaga and found in Unit 10, to bolster its argument that Arteaga resided there. Officer Cress, during cross-examination by Arteaga’s trial counsel, stated that Carlos Moreno told him that the bedroom where the Western Union receipts were found was Arteaga’s bedroom. No objection was made to Officer…