U.S. v. BROOMFIELD, 305 Fed.Appx. 441 (9th Cir. 2008)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James BROOMFIELD, a/k/a Biscuit, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-56585.United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.Submitted December 17, 2008.[*]
Filed December 29, 2008.

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

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

Becky S. Walker, Esq., Michael Z. Weiback, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

James Broomfield, Federal Correctional Institution, Terminal Island, CA, pro se.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Consuelo B. Marshall, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. Nos. CV-00-00165-CBM, CR-95-00165-CBM-02.

Before: GOODWIN, TROTT and RYMER, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM[**]

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

James Broomfield appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo, Sanchez v. United States, 50 F.3d 1448, 1451 (9th Cir. 1995), and we affirm.

Broomfield contends that appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to appeal the denial of his motion for appointment of an expert chemist. We conclude that counsel was not ineffective in failing to raise the denial of the motion, and that Broomfield cannot demonstrate prejudice by this omission because this claim did not have a reasonable probability of succeeding on appeal. See Miller v. Keeney, 882 F.2d 1428, 1433-35 (9th Cir. 1989).

AFFIRMED.

Page 442