Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael David CHRISTAKIS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-02-12
Citations: 87 F. App'x 678
Docket Number: No. 02-55749; D.C. Nos. CV-97-01212-ER; CR-90-00498-ER-02
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Michael David CHRISTAKIS, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 87
Pages: 678–679

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Michael David CHRISTAKIS, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 02-55749.
D.C. Nos. CV-97-01212-ER; CR-90-00498-ER-02.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 4, 2004.
Decided Feb. 12, 2004.
Bruce Riordan, Ronald L. Cheng, USLA-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Michael David Christakis, pro se, Taft, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before KOZINSKI, O’SCANNLAIN and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
The district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 because defendant has not demonstrated that his counsel's conflict of interest adversely affected his representation. Mannhalt v. Reed, 847 F.2d 576, 579 (9th Cir.1988) (citing Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 350, 100 S.Ct. 1708, 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980)).
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.