United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Sergio Alberto Molina, Defendant-appellant, 125 F.3d 859 (9th Cir. 1997)
Annotate this CaseAppeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Richard M. Bilby, District Judge, Presiding; Nos. CV-96-00437-RMB and CR-92-00519-RMB.
Before: HALL, BRUNETTI and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM*
Federal prisoner Sergio Alberto Molina appeals pro se the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence imposed following his jury conviction for conspiracy to possess cocaine with the intent to distribute and attempt to possess cocaine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a) (1) and 846. We review a district court's denial of a section 2255 motion de novo. See United States v. Span, 75 F.3d 1383, 1386 (9th Cir. 1996). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and we affirm.
Molina contends that his counsel was ineffective because his counsel did not seek a downward adjustment for Molina's mitigating role under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. Because the record reveals that Molina's counsel did move for, and Molina actually received, a four-level adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. 3B1.2, this contention is meritless. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). The district court did not err. See Span, 75 F.3d at 1386.
AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Accordingly, Shortman's request for oral argument is denied. See 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.
