Sahakian
United States v. Sahakian
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Federal prisoner David Michael Sahakian appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 , and affirm.
Sahakian contends trial counsel provided by ineffective assistance by failing to present sufficient evidence to establish a justification defense. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Sahakian’s contention is without merit. On direct appeal, this court, relying upon United States v. Lemon, 824 F.2d 768, 765 (9th Cir.1987), affirmed the trial court’s exclusion of Sahakiaris justification defense. See United States v. Sahakian, 965 F.2d 740, 741 (9th Cir.1992), affd after remand, 15 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir.1994) (mem.). The evidence now proffered by Sahakian, even if it had been presented by trial counsel at the motion in limine hearing, would not have altered the district court’s ruling. See United States v. Wofford, 113 F.3d 977, 980 (9th Cir.), amended on other grounds by 122 F.3d 787 (9th Cir.1997) (citing Sahakian, 965 F.2d at 741 ). As such, trial counsel’s performance was not deficient. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687-88 .