Pedersen
United States v. Pedersen
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
The district court has denied Stanley Pedersen’s motion to vacate his federal criminal conviction for firearm violations and engaging in the unlawful taking of an endangered species. 1 Pedersen now appeals, arguing that his conviction must be set aside under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 because he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, Pedersen argues that his two lawyers, Robin Koutchak and Richard Kibby, were deficient in their counsel regarding whether Pedersen should testify in his own defense. We affirm the district court and hold that Pedersen’s counsel was not constitutionally defective.
We review de novo whether a defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel. See Allen v. Woodford, 366 F.3d 823, 836 (9th Cir.2004). Under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), “[t]o establish that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance, the defendant must show that [1] counsel’s performance was deficient, and [2] that the deficiency prejudiced the defendant.” United States v. Sanchez-Cervantes, 282 F.3d 664, 671 (9th Cir.2002). Pedersen’s claim does not satisfy these requirements.