N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. JOHNNY M . W ILLIAM S, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 15-16143

D.C . No. 4:09-c r-00786-JSW -1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Je ffre y S. White , Distric t Judge , Pre siding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d

August 10, 2016 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : GR

AB ER and M c KEOW

N, C irc u it Judge s, a

nd PETER SON, ** Distric t Judge
. On M arc h

11, 2010, a

jury found Johnny

M
. W illia

m s guilty of viola

ting 18 U.S.C . § 922(g)(1), be ing a Fe lon in Posse ssion of a

Fire arm . On June 3, 2010, the distric t c o urt se nte nc e d W illia m s to a te rm of im p risonm e n t of 120 m onths.



# FIL ED AUG 29 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble R osa nna M a louf Pe te rson, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Ea ste rn Distric t of W a shington, sitting by de signa tion.W illia

m s tim e ly a

ppe a le d his c onvic tion a

nd, on Se pte m

be r 16, 2011, this c ourt
a ffirm e d. Unite d State

s v . W i lliams , 450 F. App’ x 600 (9th C ir. Se p t. 16, 2011). W illia m s now a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s orde r de ny ing his motion to va c ate , se t
a side , or c orre c t the c onvic tion, judgme nt, a nd se nte nc e pursua

nt to 28 U.S.C . § 2255. The distric t c ourt gra nte d a c e rtific ate of a

ppe a l a bility a s to Appe lla

nt’ s se c o nd c l a i m , whic h a lle ge d tha t tria l c o unse l wa s de fic ie nt for not pre s e nting the
a ffirm ative de fe nse of “

justific ation.” W e hav e jurisdic tion pursua n t to 28 U.S.C
. §§ 1291 a nd 2255(d). W e re vie w de novo. Se e Re y noso v . Giurbino , 462 F.3d 1099, 1108 (9th C ir. 2006). In orde r to pre va il on a c la im of ine ffe c tive a s sista

nc e of c ounse l , a

n
a ppe lla nt m ust e sta b lish both (1) tha

t the a ssista

nc e of tria l c ounse l wa s c onstitutiona

lly de fic i e nt, a

nd (2) tha t de fic i e nc y pre

j udic e d the de fe nse . Stric k land v . W ashington , 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). “ Fa ilure to m ake the re quire d showing of e ithe r de fic ie nt pe rform anc e or suffic ie nt pre judic e de fe ats the ine ffe c tive ne s s c la im .” Id . at 700. W illia m s a s se rts tha

t tria l c ounse l wa s ine ffe c tive “ whe re he r fa ilure to
c onside r the fa c t

tha t W illia m s’ te stim ony c ould be c onstrue d a s a dm i tting
c onstruc tive posse ssion le d he r to re je c t a m e ritorious justific ation de fe nse in fa vor

2of an im

pla usible la c k-of-posse ssion de fe nse .” Howe ve r, tria l c ounse l a rtic ulate d a
num be r of strate g ic re a sons for not a sse rting thea ffirm ative de fe nse of justific at ion. W e c onc lude tha

t the va rious stra te gic re a s ons for c ounse l’ s de c ision to fore go the justific ation de fe nse we re re a sona ble . Ac c ordingly , tria l c ounse l’ s strate gic de c ision did not de prive W illia

m s of the right to c o unse l gua ra nte e d by the Sixth Am e ndm e nt. AFFIRM E D.

3