United States v. Luna

31 F. App'x 461
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided February 25, 2002·No. No. 00-17542; D.C. No. CV-00-06072-REC CR-95-05036-1-REC·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Appellant Oscar Luna (“Luna”) appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to set aside or vacate his conviction on the basis that he was denied the opportunity, while in detention, to interview prospective replacement counsel. A disbarred lawyer, Luna had been represented by retained counsel, but was given permission to represent himself with his prior counsel remaining in an advisory role. Because Luna concedes that neither he nor advisory counsel told the district court of his possible change of heart, that court can hardly be faulted for failing to provide Luna the opportunity to have such interviews. This leaves us with the claim that a jail policy restricting private, unsupervised interviews to counsel of record operates to deny a detainee meaningful access to the courts. But there is nothing inherently unreasonable about such a policy.

AFFIRMED.

Footnotes

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

United States v. Luna, 31 F. App'x 461 (9th Cir. 2002).

31 F. App'x 461 (United States v. Luna) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Luna v. United States
537 U.S. 887 (Supreme Court, 2002)