United States v. Charles Bush

MEMORANDUM

Charles Nolon Bush appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. We review de novo, and we affirm. United States v. Daniels, 195 F.3d 501, 502 (9th Cir.1999), affd, 532 U.S. 374 , 121 S.Ct. 1578 , 149 L.Ed.2d 590 (2001).

Bush claims that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance at sentencing when she failed to object to the Presentence Report (“PSR”). The PSR relied on statutory maximum sentences that had increased since the time of the offense conduct, in violation of the Ex Post Facto clause. To prevail, Bush must show (1) that “counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness” and (2) “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Porter v. McCollum, 558 U.S. 80, 38 , 130 S.Ct. 447 , 175 L.Ed.2d 398 (2009) (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986) (internal quotation marks omitted)).

Bush cannot show a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s failure to object to the PSR, the result of the proceeding would have been…