Marshall

MEMORANDUM

Pierre Clifton Marshall appeals from the district court’s denial of his 28 *627 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his convictions for money laundering, and drug trafficking. Although we previously determined that a certificate of appealability was unnecessary, upon further consideration in light of Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 , 120 S.Ct. 1595, 1600 , 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000), a certificate is required. We therefore grant the certificate of appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , as to the following issues: 1) whether Marshall’s counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the court’s reading of jury instructions regarding the elements of money laundering followed by a general instruction defining the term “knowingly” and 2) whether Marshall’s right to due process was violated by the court’s reading of the conflicting instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . 3 We review de novo the district court’s denial of Marshall’s section 2255 motion, United States v. Chacon-Palomares, 208 F.3d 1157, 1158 (9th Cir.2000), and affirm.

First, the district court correctly determined that in the absence of an objection, the trial court’s reading of both a specific money…