Skurdal

MEMORANDUM *

Gustav W. Skurdal appeals from the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his conviction *78 or sentence. This is the third time Skurdal’s § 2255 motion has been before this Court.

The certified issue before us now is whether Skurdal is entitled to habeas relief because he was denied effective assistance of counsel on his direct appeal when his counsel withdrew and Skurdal proceeded pro se. Under our prior opinions in this case, United States v. Skurdal, 229 F.3d 1161 , 2000 WL 727748 (9th Cir.2000) (unpublished disposition), and United States v. Skurdal, 341 F.3d 921 (9th Cir. 2003), the district court had jurisdiction to consider the claim. Therefore, the district court erred in dismissing the claim as untimely.

Skurdal is not entitled to habeas relief on his denial of effective assistance of counsel claim unless he can show that he was prejudiced by the denial of effective assistance of counsel. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 691-92 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Denial of any assistance of counsel is typically presumed to result in prejudice. Id. at 692 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 . However, our previous opinions in…