From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Williams

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jun 2, 2000
225 F.3d 665 (9th Cir. 2000)

Summary

Affirming denial of § 2255 motion as untimely, and concluding "Valenzuela-Chairez has failed to explain either why he waited two years after his conviction became final to request his trial transcripts or why he needed these materials in order to file a timely section 2255 motion."

Summary of this case from United States v. Felix

Opinion


225 F.3d 665 (9th Cir. 2000) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Byron Christopher WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant. No. 97-35609. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit June 2, 2000

Submitted May 22, 2000.

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

D.C. Nos. CV-96-01846-WLD, CR-92-00134-WLD

Editorial Note:

This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, William L. Dwyer, District Judge, Presiding.

Before PREGERSON, FERNANDEZ, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Byron Christopher Williams appeals pro se the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his 138-month sentence for armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) & (d), and use of a firearm during a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(a). We review de novo the district court's denial of a section 2255 motion, see United States v. Guess, 203 F.3d 1143, 1145 (9th Cir.2000), and we vacate and remand.

We granted Williams a certificate of appealability on the issue of whether he was denied effective assistance of counsel when counsel failed to file a notice of appeal and Williams did not consent to that failure. Subsequently, in Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 120 S.Ct. 1029 (2000), the Supreme Court expressly set forth the factors to consider in determining whether a defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel when no notice of appeal was filed on his behalf. See id. at 1035-38 (concluding that district court must determine whether counsel failed to follow the defendant's express instructions concerning an appeal; whether counsel consulted or reasonably chose not to consult with the defendant regarding an appeal; and whether there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's deficient performance, the defendant would have timely appealed).

Because the district court's findings here do not address these particular criteria and the record is insufficient to allow us to do so, we vacate the denial of Williams' motion on this ground only and remand for further proceedings consistent with Flores-Ortega. See id. at 1040.

VACATED AND REMANDED.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Williams

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jun 2, 2000
225 F.3d 665 (9th Cir. 2000)

Affirming denial of § 2255 motion as untimely, and concluding "Valenzuela-Chairez has failed to explain either why he waited two years after his conviction became final to request his trial transcripts or why he needed these materials in order to file a timely section 2255 motion."

Summary of this case from United States v. Felix

rejecting arguments that the federal government exceeded its jurisdictional authority because the defendant is a citizen of the state of Washington since, "regardless of where [the defendant] was presented with notice of violation, the district court has jurisdiction over all offenses against the United States."

Summary of this case from United States v. Irvine
Case details for

U.S. v. Williams

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Byron Christopher…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jun 2, 2000

Citations

225 F.3d 665 (9th Cir. 2000)

Citing Cases

U.S. v. Joyner

There is no disagreement among the circuits that aiding and abetting the violation of federal narcotics laws…

United States v. Chipres-Madriz

See Alvarado-Delgado, 98 F.3d at 493.United States v. Martinez-Vitela, 225 F.3d 665, 2000 WL 687698, at *4…