United States v. Colin Nathanson , 585 F. App'x 615 ( 2014 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCTOBER 30 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-56410
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. Nos. 8:12-cv-01978-CJC
8:05-cr-00301-CJC-1
v.
COLIN NATHANSON, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted October 7, 2014
Pasadena, California
Before: TALLMAN, BEA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Colin Nathanson appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255
motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his 324-month sentence for mail fraud. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(d), and we affirm.
Nathanson has not shown “that counsel’s representation fell below an
objective standard of reasonableness.” See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
668, 687-88 (1984). Appellate counsel are not required to raise every nonfrivolous
claim in a merits brief, and “‘[g]enerally, only when ignored issues are clearly
stronger than those presented, will the presumption of effective assistance of counsel
be overcome.’” Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259, 288 (2000) (quoting Gray v.
Greer, 800 F.2d 644, 646 (7th Cir. 1986)). It was not clear that a due process claim
based on Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983), would have been stronger than
the claims Nathanson’s counsel actually raised.
AFFIRMED.
2