Myers

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

8 Case No. 5:09-cr-01195-EJD-2 Plaintiff, 9 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S 28 v. U.S.C. § 2255 MOTION TO VACATE 10 LLOYD MYERS, Re: Dkt. No. 219 11 Defendant. 12

13 Before the Court is Defendant Lloyd Myers’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his 14 sentence. Motion to Vacate (“Mot.”), Dkt. 219. On June 14, 2019, the Government filed an 15 answer replying to Defendant’s motion. Answer to Defendant’s Motion to Vacate (“Answer”), 16 Dkt. 255. Defendant submitted a reply to this answer. Reply to United States Answer (“Reply”), 17 Dkt. 258. Defendant argues his sentence should be vacated because his trial counsel was 18 ineffective. However, because Defendant cannot show deficiency and prejudice, as required by 19 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), Defendant’s motion is DENIED. 20 I. BACKGROUND 21 In 2003, Defendant and his…