Malone

MEMORANDUM **

Federal prisoner Herman Wade Malone, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his motion to vacate or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 . We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review de novo, see United States v. Rodrigues, 347 F.3d 818, 823 (9th Cir.2003), and we affirm.

Malone contends his trial and appellate attorneys provided ineffective assistance by failing to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence for the charge of carrying a firearm in connection to drug trafficking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924 (c). To demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel, appellant must establish both that his counsel’s performance was deficient and that he was prejudiced as a result. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Even assuming both attorneys were deficient in failing to challenge the § 924 conviction, we conclude that appellant failed to show prejudice. In light of the evidence, Malone cannot show that no reasonable juror could have found the government met its burden of proof. See United States v. Krouse, 370 F.3d 965, 967-68 (9th Cir.2004). Thus, this…