Triplett

MEMORANDUM *

Movant-Appellant Edward Lee Triplett appeals the district court’s order denying his motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history, we do not repeat it here except to the extent necessary for our disposition.

I.

We review the district court’s legal conclusions de novo and any underlying factual findings for clear error. United States v. Christakis, 238 F.3d 1164, 1168 (9th Cir.2001). When reviewing for clear error, we will accept the district court’s factual findings unless “we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Doe, 155 F.3d 1070, 1074 (9th Cir.1998) (en banc).

II.

A.

Triplett argues first that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to move to dismiss the count in the Second Superseding Indictment for conspiracy to manufacture, possess and distribute methamphetamine. He reasons that, although the government’s complaint resulting in his arrest did not “on its face” charge Triplett with conspiracy to…