Case Name: Louis Perez CERDA, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1970-04-29
Citations: 424 F.2d 544
Docket Number: No. 24327
Parties: Louis Perez CERDA, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 424
Pages: 544–544

Head Matter:
Louis Perez CERDA, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 24327.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
April 29, 1970.
Louis Perez Cerda, in pro. per.
Wm. Matthew Byrne, Jr., U. S. Atty., Robert L. Brosio, Larry S. Flax, Asst. U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for appel-lee.
Before CARTER and HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judges, and VON DER HEYDT , District Judge.
Hon. James A. von der Heydt, United States District Judge for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Cerda played Russian Roulette with his chances, and lost. A three count indictment charged violations of Title 21 U.S.C. Sec. 174 and 26 U.S.C. Sec. 4705 (a) (1964), the crimes of concealing and selling a narcotic drug, namely heroin, and selling a narcotic drug, namely heroin, without a proper form issued for that purpose. The U. S. Attorney offered a plea to a lesser offense, a "tax count", which appellant refused, contrary to the advice of his counsel, and elected to stand trial. The jury convicted him upon two of the three counts, and he was sentenced to two concurrent ten year sentences, the mandatory minimum under the circumstances. Upon appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the conviction, per curiam, was affirmed. Cerda v. United States, 391 F.2d 219 (9th Cir. 1968). Appellant was represented at trial and upon appeal by the same attorney.
The present proceeding originated as a motion filed by appellant under 2255. The district court, by order, denied the motion without hearing for the reason it was apparent appellant was entitled to no relief. Cerda appeals this order.
We have given careful consideration to the briefs and have examined appellant's contentions with care. We do not find any to be well taken or to merit discussion here.
The order of the district court is affirmed.