Case ID: f-appx_580/html/0577-01.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. David Opollo ROSS, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lei Lavarias Ross, aka Lei L Lavarias, aka Lei Lopez, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 12-17485, 12-17486.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted June 11, 2014.
    Filed June 25, 2014.
    Leslie E. Osborne, Jr., Esquire, Assistant U.S., Amy Katherine Olson, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Peter C. Wolff, Jr., Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Honolulu, HI, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: W. FLETCHER, IKUTA, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

David and Lei Ross appeal the district court’s denial of their 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions attacking their convictions for tax evasion and conspiracy to defraud the United States. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and affirm.

David Ross contends that his attorney, Alan Richey, had an actual conflict of interest because he was a necessary witness for their defense, and otherwise provided ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court granted a certificate of appeala-bility on the actual conflict argument, but denied a certificate of appealability on three other ineffective assistance claims.

1. The district court concluded after a two-day evidentiary hearing that Richey did not have an actual conflict, as he never advised the Rosses to undertake illegal activity, and because his testimony would not have supported the defense and would have likely aided the prosecution. Those factual findings were not clearly erroneous. United States v. Aguirre-Ganceda, 592 F.3d 1043, 1045 (9th Cir.2010).

2. Because the Rosses failed to make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right” on their other ineffective assistance claims, we decline to address the issues not covered by the certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); see Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000).

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