Lumpkin
United States v. Lumpkin
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Kenneth J. Lumpkin appeals the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his conviction and 240-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute cocaine base and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 21 U.S.C. § 841 . We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the district court’s denial of Lumpkin’s motion to vacate, see United States v. Chacon-Palomares, 208 F.3d 1157, 1158 (9th Cir. 2000), and we affirm.
Lumpkin argues that his counsel at trial provided ineffective assistance by failing to object, and seek severance based upon, the introduction of evidence of the confession by Lumpkin’s non-testifying co-defendant, evidence which implicated Lumpkin in vio *247 lation of Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 , 88 S.Ct. 1620 , 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968).
To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Lumpkin must show that his counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced his defense. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).
In this case, there was no clear Bruton violation. Moreover, the record overwhelmingly links…