Livingston

United States v. Livingston

Good Law
114 F. App'x 889
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 10, 2004No. 03-16608; D.C. No. CV-01-03666-SBA, CR-98-40030-SBACalifornia315 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Federal prisoner Anthony Livingston appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his conviction for possession of cocaine base for distribution, carrying a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking crime and possession of a firearm after a felony conviction. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

Livingston contends that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to request a jury instruction on the lesser-included offense of simple possession of cocaine base. This claim fails for lack of prejudice, because, as the district court determined, failure to request such a jury instruction would have been irreconcilable with his argument at trial that the drugs had been planted. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

Livingston further contends that counsel rendered ineffective assistance by allowing the jury to hear of his parole status. This claim fails for lack of deficiency, because the record reveals that Livingston deliberately used his parole status as part of his defense.

Livingston also contends that his trial counsel was…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.