Case ID: f-appx_56/html/0811-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Bryan Stuart LANKFORD, Petitioner — Appellant, v. ADMINISTRATOR OF PRISONS, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,; Alan G. Lance, Respondents — Appel-lees.
    No. 01-35715.
    D.C. No. CV-97-00191-BLW.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Feb. 13, 2003.
    Decided Feb. 25, 2003.
    Before BRUNETTI, T.G. NELSON and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

We affirm for the reasons set forth in the well-reasoned district court order. In addition, defense counsel’s decision not to pursue a coercion defense “was a strategic ehoice[ ] made after thorough investigation of law and facts relevant to plausible options ... [,]” rendering it “virtually unchallengeable.” See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 691, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.