United States v. Carl W. Mathisen

103 F.3d 142 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.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. Carl W. MATHISEN, Defendant-Appellant. No. 95-35756. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Nov. 4, 1996. * Decided Nov. 7, 1996. Before: WRIGHT, BRUNETTI and O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Carl Mathisen appeals the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence. Mathisen contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal, that the district court improperly instructed the jury on the crimes charged in the indictment, and that the prosecutor knew or should have known that the grand jury heard perjured testimony. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm. 3 * Mathisen argues that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective trial counsel on the ground that his attorney, Lawrence Finegold, breached the duty…