Johnson v. United States

Good Law
160 F. App'x 575
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 19, 2005No. 04-17181California529 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

*576 MEMORANDUM **

James Johnson appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 based on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, and the district court’s denial of his motion for leave to amend his section 2255 motion to add a challenge to his sentence under Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 , 124 S.Ct. 2531 , 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). Because the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history we do not include them here, except as necessary to explain our disposition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253 and we AFFIRM.

First, Johnson has failed to prove that his trial counsel’s performance was unreasonable under prevailing professional standards and that there is a reasonable probability that but for any of counsel’s alleged errors, the result of Johnson’s criminal proceeding would have been different. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Therefore, the district court’s denial of Johnson’s section 2255 motion is AFFIRMED.

Second, the district court did hot abuse its discretion in refusing to permit Johnson to…

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.