Case ID: f-appx_92/html/0569-01.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. Deborah Jean ROSS, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 03-55593.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 30, 2004.
    
    Decided April 2, 2004.
    Ronald L. Cheng, Esq., Robert Edward Dugdale, Esq., USLA-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    David A. Katz, Katz & Associates, Beverly Hill, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before GOODWIN, PREGERSON, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Deborah Ross appeals the denial of her petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Ross claims that she was denied effective assistance of counsel because her trial attorney (1) failed to object, on Fourth Amendment grounds, to evidence discovered in her purse by Postal Inspectors; (2) failed to move for an evidentiary hearing on prosecutorial misconduct; (3) failed to pursue potentially exculpatory fingerprint evidence; and (4) failed to move to suppress an incriminating statement Ross made to the Inspectors without the benefit of warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).

“In order to establish ineffective representation, the defendant must prove both incompetence and prejudice.” Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 381, 106 S.Ct. 2574, 91 L.Ed.2d 305 (1986) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)). Ross cannot prove either.

The prosecution’s case was strong. See United States v. Ross, 206 F.3d 896 (9th Cir.2000) (affirming conviction on direct appeal). Even if Ross were to prevail on each of the claims that she now says should have been raised at trial, it is unlikely that the outcome of her case would have been different. See Bailey v. Newland, 263 F.3d 1022, 1029 (9th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 995, 122 S.Ct. 1556, 152 L.Ed.2d 479 (2002).

The district court’s denial of the petition for habeas relief is 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.