United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Larry P. Ledford, Defendant-appellant, 70 F.3d 121 (9th Cir. 1995)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 70 F.3d 121 (9th Cir. 1995) Submitted Nov. 6, 1995. *Decided Nov. 9, 1995

Before: GOODWIN, PREGERSON, and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM** 

Larry P. Ledford, a federal parolee, appeals pro se the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. He contends the district court erred in denying him relief. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We accept the district court's factual findings unless clearly erroneous and review its conclusions of law de novo. Doganiere v. United States, 914 F.2d 165, 167 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 940 (1991). We affirm.

On June 8, 1984, Ledford pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute marijuana and was sentenced to five years in prison consecutive to another federal conviction. At his sentencing hearing, Ledford admitted that half a pound of marijuana was found during the search of his residence. On November 17, 1994, Ledford filed this motion challenging the marijuana conviction.

He contends his marijuana conviction is invalid because police reports do not reflect that any marijuana was seized at the time his residence was searched. Ledford waived this claim when he pleaded guilty to the charge. See Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973). Accordingly, the district court properly denied the claim without an evidentiary hearing. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255; see also United States v. Donn, 661 F.2d 820, 824 (9th Cir. 1981) (we may affirm on any basis supported by the record).

AFFIRMED.

 *

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.