United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. George Enoch Davidson, Defendant-appellant, 74 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. 1996)
Annotate this CaseBefore: CHOY, SKOPIL, and FERGUSON, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM**
George Davidson appeals pro se the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. He contends that his sentence should be vacated because the district court allegedly relied on inaccurate information in the presentence report and failed to consider his ability to pay before imposing restitution. Davidson failed, however, to raise these arguments before the district court at sentencing or on direct appeal. Accordingly, he has waived his right to have these nonconstitutional issues reviewed in collateral proceedings. See United States v. Schlesinger, 49 F.3d 483, 485 (9th Cir. 1994).
AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for submission on the record and briefs and without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a), Ninth Circuit Rule 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 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.
