Arnold
United States v. Arnold
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Tyrone Arnold, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition, challenging a 37-month sentence for two counts of possessing forged and counterfeit checks, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 513 (a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.
Arnold contends that the district court erred by denying his section 2255 motion without considering his second amendment to that motion. We review de novo a district court’s denial of a section 2255 motion, United States v. Baker, 256 F.3d 855, 859 (9th Cir.2001), while we review the denial of leave to amend for an abuse *447 of discretion, United States ex rel. Sequoia Orange Co. v. Baird-Neece Packing Corp., 151 F.3d 1139, 1147 (9th Cir.1998).
Arnold submitted a second motion to amend after the government filed its response. This motion was returned because Arnold failed to attach proof of service. See Fed.R.CivJP. 5(d). There is no record that the district court received a cured amendment. Because the motion was never properly before the district court, we cannot say it was an abuse of discretion to deny the motion. See Baird-Neece, 151 F.3d at 1147…