United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Javier Villa-guerrero, Defendant-appellant, 142 F.3d 447 (9th Cir. 1998)
Annotate this CaseAppeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Alicemarie H. Stotler, District Judge, Presiding.
Before BRUNETTI, RYMER, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM1
Javier Villa-Guerrero appeals pro se the district court's denial of his motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 challenging the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to narcotics charges. Villa-Guerrero asserts that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to investigate and to argue at sentencing that the substance involved was l-methamphetamine rather than the harsher-penalized d-methamphetamine. Under the prevailing professional norms at the time of sentencing, the failure to pursue the methamphetamine distinction was not objectively unreasonable. See generally United States v. McMullen, 98 F.3d 1155, 1157-58 (9th Cir. 1996). Because counsel's conduct was not objectively unreasonable, Villa-Guerrero cannot demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984).
AFFIRMED.
We have considered the arguments set forth in appellant's untimely Reply Brief, which was received by this court on April 14, 1998. The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. 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.
