Case ID: f-appx_49/html/0700-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Joseph E. DUNNE, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 01-50424.
    D.C. No. CR-99-1092-GAF.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 12, 2002.
    
    Decided Oct. 18, 2002.
    Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judge, and WEINER, Senior District Judge.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Charles R. Weiner, Senior District Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Appellant Joseph E. Dunne appeals his conviction after pleading guilty to four counts of possession of stolen mail in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1708. The only issue is whether the district court should have granted a motion to withdraw his guilty plea on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court did not err under any standard.

The alleged ineffectiveness is the failure to file a motion to suppress that had no reasonable possibility of success. Counsel is under no obligation to make frivolous motions or advise a defendant of every conceivable constitutional attack he might mount. See Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267, 93 S.Ct. 1602, 36 L.Ed.2d 235 (1973). Appellant has not shown that the advice he received was below the standard of competent representation. See United States v. Signori, 844 F.2d 635, 638 (9th Cir.1988).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       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.