T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. R O B E R T R O B I N S O N , A K A B o b C o o l, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 10- 55934 D. C . No s . 2 : 0 8 - c v - 0 5 2 6 7 - WDK 2: 06 -c r- 00 21 6-W D K -1 ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia W i l l i a m D . K e l l e r , S e ni orD i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng

S ubm i tt e d F e brua ry8, 2013 ** P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: O ’ S C A N N L A IN , T R O T T , an dC L IF T O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. R obe rtR obi ns on t i m e l yr a i s e s f i ve c ha l l e nge s t o the de ni a l of hi s § 2255 m ot i on bythe di s tr i c tc ourt . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S . C . §§ 1291 a nd 2 2 5 3 , a n dw e a f

f i rm. 

# FI LED FEB 28 2 013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

B e c aus e R obi ns on’ s or i gi na l appe l l a t e c ouns e l de c i de d nott o c ha l l e nge the us e of the e xtr apol a t i on m e thod orthe pr e ponde r a nc e of the e vi de nc e s t a nda r d on di re ctappeal , hi s f

i rs ttw o cl ai m s have been procedural l y def aul t ed. S ee U ni t ed S t a t e s v. J ohns on, 988 F . 2d 941, 945 ( 9th C i r . 1993) . R obi ns on doe s nota tt e m pt t o d em on strat e c ause and p re j ud i ce t o excuse thi s def aul t , as he m ust . U ni t ed S t a t e s v . F r a d y , 4 5 6 U. S . 1 5 2 , 1 6 6 - 6 7 ( 1 9 8 2 ) . T h e r e f o r e , we r e

j e c th i s f i r s ttwo ch al l en g es. R o b in s o n w a s n o t d e n ie dh is r ig h t to e f f e c tiv e a s s is tan c e o f

c o u n s e l a t h is se nt enci ng or on appeal . T he l egalar gu m ent s he des i re d h i s att orneys t o m ake had no r e a s onabl e l i ke l i hood of s uc c e s s . T hi s c ourtha s appr ove d of the e xtr apol a t i on m e thod, U ni t e d S t a t e s v. L ope s - M ont e s , 165 F . 3d 730, 732 ( 9th C i r . 1999) , a nd R obi ns on’ s a r gum e nt s do notc a s tdoubton i t s va l i di ty . F urthe rm or e , the p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f

th e e v id e n c e s tan d a r dw a s th e c o rr e c t s tan d a r dto ap p lya t h is se nt enci ng . U ni t ed S t at es v. H arri son-P hi l po t , 97 8 F . 2d 15 20 , 15 23 -24 (9th C i r. 1992) . T he r e f

or e , R obi ns on’ s a tt orne y s w e r e noti ne f f e c t i ve , a nd he w a s not p r e ju d ic e db yth e irp e r f

o rm a n c e . S e e M ille rv . K e e n e y , 8 8 2 F .2 d1 4 2 8 , 1 4 3 5 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 8 9 ) . R ob i nson ’ s i nabi l i ty t o p ayhi s tri alcoun se l cr eat ed on l y the po t ent i alfor a c o n f l i c to f i n t e r e s t . Wi l l i a m s v . C a l d e r o n , 5 2 F . 3 d1 4 6 5 , 1 4 7 3 ( 9 th C i r . 1 9 9 5 ) . As3

s u c h , h e m u s t s h o w th a t h is a tto rn e y ’s p e r f o rm a n c e w a s o b

je c tiv e lyu n r e a s o n ab le a n dth a t h e w a s p r e

ju d ic e da s ar e s u lt. B o n in v . C a ld e r o n , 5 9 F .3 d8 1 5 , 8 2 7 ( 9 th C i r . 1995) . R obi ns on c a nnotde m ons tr a t e pr e j udi c e i n the f

a c e of the o v e rw h e lm in g e v id e n c e o f h is g u ilt an dth e r e du c e ds e n te n c e h e r e c e iv e d . AF F I RME D.