Castellano

United States v. Castellano

Good Law
75 F. App'x 629
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 16, 2003No. 02-35643California354 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Osman Jose Castellano, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Castellano challenges his jury-trial conviction and 300-month sentence for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1). *630 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review de novo, United States v. Angelone, 894 F.2d 1129, 1130 (9th Cir.1990), and we affirm.

Castellano contends that trial counsel was ineffective because counsel failed to obtain the trial testimony of a material witness, and contest the court’s erroneous jury instructions. The district court did not err in its conclusion that the witness issue could not be raised in a § 2255 motion because it had previously been raised and rejected at trial and on direct appeal. See United States v. Castellano, 232 F.3d 897 (9th Cir.2000) (unpublished disposition) (affirming Castellano’s conviction, and rejecting this contention in Castellano’s direct appeal); United States v. Redd, 759 F.2d 699, 701 (9th Cir.1985) (“Since these challenges would all have been meritless, [defendant] cannot claim that his counsel's failure to raise them…

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.