From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Joseph v. United States

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jul 28, 2014
583 F. App'x 830 (9th Cir. 2014)

Opinion

Submitted July 22, 2014

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. D.C. Nos. 5:08-cv-04607-RMW, 00-cr-20217-RMW. Ronald M. Whyte, District Judge, Presiding.

EARL JOSEPH, Petitioner - Appellant, Pro se, Coleman, FL.

For UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee: Barbara Valliere, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Anne M. Voigts, Assistant U.S. Attorney, OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY, San Francisco, CA.


Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Federal prisoner Earl Joseph appeals pro se from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Joseph contends that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his claim that his convictions are based on perjured testimony. We review the district court's denial of an evidentiary hearing for abuse of discretion, see United States v. Rodrigues, 347 F.3d 818, 823 (9th Cir. 2003), and its factual findings for clear error, see United States v. Zuno-Arce, 339 F.3d 886, 888 (9th Cir. 2003). The district court properly denied Joseph's claim without an evidentiary hearing because the record shows that the district court did not clearly err in any of its factual findings and the record was sufficiently developed for the court to conclude that the claim lacked merit. See United States v. Mejia-Mesa, 153 F.3d 925, 931 (9th Cir. 1998) (no evidentiary hearing is required if, in light of the record, the movant's allegations are " palpably incredible or patently frivolous" ).

We construe Joseph's additional arguments as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Joseph v. United States

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jul 28, 2014
583 F. App'x 830 (9th Cir. 2014)
Case details for

Joseph v. United States

Case Details

Full title:EARL JOSEPH, Petitioner - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jul 28, 2014

Citations

583 F. App'x 830 (9th Cir. 2014)

Citing Cases

Camacho v. United States

A hearing is not required if, in light of the record, the movant's allegations are "palpably incredible or…