United States v. Alfred L. Williams

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Alfred L. Williams

124 F.3d 214, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 31725, 1997 WL 577415

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 12, 1997

Docket96-35961

StatusUnpublished

This text of 124 F.3d 214 (United States v. Alfred L. Williams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Alfred L. Williams, 124 F.3d 214, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 31725, 1997 WL 577415 (9th Cir. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

124 F.3d 214

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.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.
Alfred L. WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 96-35961.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 8, 1997.**
Decided Sept. 12, 1997.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. Thomas S. Zilly, District Judge, Presiding.

Before HALL, BRUNETTI and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM*

Federal prisoner Alfred L. Williams appeals pro se the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his jury conviction and the sentence imposed for cocaine conspiracy. Williams contends that his conviction should be vacated because his counsel was ineffective, his conviction violated the double jeopardy clause, and the district court erred in computing the amount of drugs attributable to Williams's part in the conspiracy. We affirm for the reasons stated in the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation filed on May 1, 1996, which was adopted in full by the district court's Order filed on July 17, 1996. See United States v. Schlesinger, 49 F.3d 483, 485 (9th Cir.1995); Molina v. Rison, 886 F.2d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir.1989).

AFFIRMED.1

**

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir. R. 34-4

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3

1

We reject Williams's contention that the district court erred by denying his request for appointed counsel because his claims were not complex or likely to be successful. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) (district court may appoint counsel in the "interests of justice" in § 2255 action); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir.1983) (per curiam)

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

124 F.3d 214

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.
Alfred L. WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 96-35961.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 8, 1997.**
Decided Sept. 12, 1997.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. Thomas S. Zilly, District Judge, Presiding.

Before HALL, BRUNETTI and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM*

Federal prisoner Alfred L. Williams appeals pro se the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his jury conviction and the sentence imposed for cocaine conspiracy. Williams contends that his conviction should be vacated because his counsel was ineffective, his conviction violated the double jeopardy clause, and the district court erred in computing the amount of drugs attributable to Williams's part in the conspiracy. We affirm for the reasons stated in the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation filed on May 1, 1996, which was adopted in full by the district court's Order filed on July 17, 1996. See United States v. Schlesinger, 49 F.3d 483, 485 (9th Cir.1995); Molina v. Rison, 886 F.2d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir.1989).

AFFIRMED.1

**

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir. R. 34-4

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3

1

We reject Williams's contention that the district court erred by denying his request for appointed counsel because his claims were not complex or likely to be successful. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) (district court may appoint counsel in the "interests of justice" in § 2255 action); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir.1983) (per curiam)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 F.3d 214, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 31725, 1997 WL 577415, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-alfred-l-williams-ca9-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack