Case Name: Neko Kimon DEFTERIOS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-04-16
Citations: 376 F. App'x 713
Docket Number: No. 08-55098
Parties: Neko Kimon DEFTERIOS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 376
Pages: 713–714

Head Matter:
Neko Kimon DEFTERIOS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 08-55098.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 2010.
Filed April 16, 2010.
James Michael Crawford, Orange, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Ivy Wang, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Santa Ana, CA, Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Neko Kimon Defterios appeals from the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Defterios contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his counsel in a previous matter failed to pursue a global resolution of that case and the instant case. The record reflects that during the relevant period, the instant case was only in the investigatory stage. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel "does not attach until a prosecution is commenced." United States v. Charley, 396 F.3d 1074, 1082 (9th Cir.2005) (quoting McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S. 171, 175, 111 S.Ct. 2204, 115 L.Ed.2d 158 (1991)). Thus, Defterios' claim of ineffective assistance of counsel fails. See United States v. Zazzara, 626 F.2d 135, 138 (9th Cir.1980), abrogated on other grounds as recognized in United States v. Pace, 833 F.2d 1307, 1311-12 (1987).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.