United States v. Randolph George

MEMORANDUM **

Randolph George was indicted for willfully failing to report all of his income for tax years 1991 and 1992, and for willfully failing to file any return at all for tax year 1993. He was convicted and sentenced to fifteen months in prison, a year of supervised release, restitution of $70,000, and a special assessment of $125. He appealed his conviction and sentence. This court affirmed the conviction but ordered a limited remand under U.S. v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). See U.S. v. George, 420 F.3d 991 (9th Cir.2005). On remand, the same sentence was imposed, and this court affirmed in a second appeal. See U.S. v. George, 226 Fed.Appx. 771 (9th Cir.2007).

*33 George filed a timely motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his sentence, arguing that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and at sentencing. The district court held that George had not been prejudiced and denied his motion. See U.S. v. George, 2009 WL 248872 (N.D.Cal. Jan. 30, 2009). The court granted a certificate of appealability as to George’s sentencing challenge, but denied a certificate of appealability on the question whether George received ineffective…

concurring:

I concur in the result.

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 14 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 09-15665

Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:01-cr-00326-MMC

v.

MEMORANDUM *

RANDOLPH GEORGE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Maxine M. Chesney, Senior District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 31, 2010 ** San Francisco, California

Before: B. FLETCHER, TALLMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

Randolph George was indicted for willfully failing to report all of his

income for tax years 1991 and 1992, and for willfully failing to file any return at

all for tax year 1993. He was convicted and sentenced to fifteen months in prison,

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). a year of supervised release, restitution of $70,000, and a special assessment…