Case ID: f-appx_115/html/0333-01.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. Thomas SANDERS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 04-15382.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 6, 2004.
    
    Decided Dec. 8, 2004.
    Daniel S. Linhardt, AUSA, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Thomas Sanders, Kailua, HI, pro se.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Thomas Sanders appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence following his conviction for perjury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and reviewing de novo, we affirm.

Sanders contends that the prosecutor’s misconduct in closing arguments deprived him of due process. Because Sanders failed to raise this issue below or demonstrate that cause and prejudice or actual innocence excused his default, his motion is procedurally barred. See Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 621, 118 S.Ct. 1604, 140 L.Ed.2d 828 (1998) (holding claim alleging constitutional error barred when raised for the first time on a § 2255 motion and appellant failed to show cause and prejudice or factual innocence).

Sanders’ request for an expanded certificate of appealability is denied.

DISMISSED. 
      
       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.