You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

United States v. Rahman

Citation: 61 F. App'x 427Docket: No. 02-10369; D.C. No. CR-98-00417-KJD

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; April 15, 2003; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

Najeeb Rahman appeals the district court's decision to revoke his supervised release, resulting in a 12-month and 1-day sentence. The appeal is under the jurisdiction of 18 U.S.C. 3742 and 28 U.S.C. 1291, and the court affirms the district court’s ruling. Rahman argues that two alleged violations should be vacated due to ineffective assistance of counsel. However, since these claims require factual development outside the existing record, the court refrains from addressing them on direct appeal, indicating they are better suited for a collateral attack under 28 U.S.C. 2255. The disposition is non-publishable and not citable in this circuit, per Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Legal Issues Addressed

Appellate Jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. 3742 and 28 U.S.C. 1291

Application: The court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal of the district court's decision to revoke supervised release and impose a sentence.

Reasoning: The appeal is under the jurisdiction of 18 U.S.C. 3742 and 28 U.S.C. 1291, and the court affirms the district court’s ruling.

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claims

Application: Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel that require factual development beyond the existing record are not addressed on direct appeal.

Reasoning: Rahman argues that two alleged violations should be vacated due to ineffective assistance of counsel. However, since these claims require factual development outside the existing record, the court refrains from addressing them on direct appeal, indicating they are better suited for a collateral attack under 28 U.S.C. 2255.

Non-Publishable and Non-Citable Dispositions

Application: The court's disposition in this case is non-publishable and not citable in this circuit according to specific court rules.

Reasoning: The disposition is non-publishable and not citable in this circuit, per Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.