Case ID: f-appx_398/html/0208-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Alexander SIGOUIN, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-17628.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
    
    Filed Sept. 30, 2010.
    Mark Alexander Inciong, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    
      Robert Alexander Sigouin, Eden, TX, pro se.
    Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Federal prisoner Robert Alexander Sigouin appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Sigouin contends that his initial trial counsel was ineffective by failing to adequately prepare for trial, violating attorney-client privilege, and failing to advise him regarding sentencing issues. This contention fails because Sigouin did not demonstrate that, but for counsel’s alleged errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 691-94, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

In addition, we reject Sigouin’s contentions that he received ineffective assistance from standby counsel after he elected to represent himself. See Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 834 n. 46, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975).

We construe Sigouin’s arguments regarding uncertified issues as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability, and we deny the motion. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam).

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