Unpublished Disposition, 889 F.2d 1097 (9th Cir. 1989)Annotate this Case
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Before HUG and CANBY, Circuit Judges, and DAVID A. EZRA,** District Judge.
Amos Earl Wright appeals the denial of his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He claims ineffective assistance of his appellate counsel. We affirm.
Wright contends that his appellate counsel failed to raise appropriately on appeal the ineffective assistance of his trial counsel and also failed to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence. We find no merit in these contentions.
In viewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). The evidence produced at trial was clearly sufficient to sustain both convictions.
The contentions of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, which depends on alleged ineffectiveness of trial counsel, lack merit. The contention concerning the exclusion of black persons from the jury has no support in the record. The contention that the consecutive sentences violated the double jeopardy clause likewise is meritless. See United States v. Rubalacaba, 811 F.2d 491, 494-95 (9th Cir. 1987) (upholding separate sentences for conspiracy and the related substantive offense).
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a) and 9th Cir.R. 34-4
The Honorable David A. Ezra, United States District Judge for the District of Hawaii, sitting by designation
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