UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6531
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ABBAS SADEGH, a/k/a Abby,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (CR-95-113-A, CA-95-1377-A)
Submitted: January 9, 1997 Decided: January 21, 1997
Before HALL and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Francis Krebs, KELLOGG, KREBS & MORAN, Fairfax, Virginia,
for Appellant. Justin W. Williams, Assistant United States Attor-
ney, Marcus John Davis, Assistant United States Attorney, Alex-
andria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Abbas Sadegh appeals the district court's order denying his
motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by Antiter-
rorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-
132, 110 Stat. 114. We affirm.
Sadegh was convicted of arson and related offenses for burning
down his restaurant to obtain insurance proceeds. Sadegh contends
that his attorney was ineffective for failing to investigate the
Government's files and for not calling as a witness his own finan-
cial expert to show that Sadegh had means to escape his debt other
than arson. Sadegh also claims that his attorney was ineffective
for failing to meet with him a sufficient number of times.
Following a hearing, the district court determined that
Sadegh's attorney reviewed and investigated the Government's files
and theories and that it was a tactical decision not to pursue a
financial defense. An attorney's tactical decisions are entitled to
deference and should not be second guessed. See Goodson v. United
States, 564 F.2d 1071, 1072 (4th Cir. 1977). The district court
further found that Sadegh was not credible on the issue of how
often he met with his attorney. We do not review credibility
determinations on appeal. United States v. Saunders, 886 F.2d 56
(4th Cir. 1989). Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the
district court. United States v. Sadegh, Nos. CR-95-113-A; CA-95-
1377-A (E.D. Va. Feb. 12, 1996).
2
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3