United States v. Lang
This text of 328 F. App'x 518 (United States v. Lang) 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.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Ference B. Lang appeals from the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 habeas motion. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Lang contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. This contention fails because Lang has not shown a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s conduct, the result of the trial would have been different. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); United States v. Sanchez-Cervantes, 282 F.3d 664, 671-72 (9th Cir.2002).
Lang also contends that his constitutional rights were violated because facts that increased the maximum penalty were neither alleged in the indictment nor proved beyond a reasonable doubt. As Lang concedes, this contention is foreclosed. See Sanchez-Cervantes, 282 F.3d at 671.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
328 F. App'x 518, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-lang-ca9-2009.