Case ID: f-appx_221/html/0585-01.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. Steven Bernard BROOKS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 05-15514.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 20, 2007.
    
    Filed Feb. 23, 2007.
    Loretta A. Sheehan, Esq., USH — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Arthur H. Weed, Esq., Santa Barbara, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Steven Bernard Brooks, a federal prisoner, appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2253 and 1291, and we vacate and remand.

The district court issued a Certificate of Appealability on the narrow issue of whether a footnote in a memorandum accompanying Brooks’ pro se § 2255 motion was sufficient to assert an independent claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. We hold the footnote sufficiently asserted a claim that Brooks was denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to advise him whether to accept plea offers. See Brown v. Roe, 279 F.3d 742, 746 (9th Cir.2002) (“Pro se habeas petitioners are to be afforded ‘the benefit of any doubt.’ ”).

Because the district court failed to address this issue, we vacate the order denying reconsideration and remand the case to the district court to grant the motion for reconsideration and to consider this claim.

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