N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
JAM ES POSTLETHWAITE,

Pe t i tione r-Appe lla

nt, v. UNITED STATES OF AM ERIC A,

R e sponde nt-Appe lle e . No. 16-35487 D.C . No. 2:15-c v-01673-JC C M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington John C . C o u ghe nour, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d an d Subm i tte d De c e m be r 6, 2017 Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : O’ SC A

N NLAIN, TALLM AN, a

nd WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s. Jam e s Postle thwa ite a

ppe a ls the de nia l of a

28 U.S.C . § 2255 m otion a lle ging ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l in c o nne c t ion with his e arlie r c onvic tion for c o nspira c y

to distribute

m arijua na in viola tion of 21 U.S.C § 841(b)(1)(A). The fa c t s a re known to the

pa rtie s a nd will not be

re pe ate d he re unle s s ne c e ssa ry . 

# FIL ED DEC 14 2017 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.I

Postle thwa ite argue s tha

t he re c e ive d

ine ffe c t ive a s sista

nc e of c ounse l, in viola tion of theSixth Am e ndm e nt, in c onne c tion with a m otion to suppre ss c e rta in sta te m e nts m a de to inve stiga tors a fte r be ing a

rre ste d. Se eStric k

l and v
. W ashington , 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). The distric t c o urt found tha

t while c ounse l’ s pe rform an c e wa s de fic ie nt, Postle thwa ite wa s not pre judic e d by any de fic ie nt pe rform anc e . Postle t hwa ite a ppe a ls tha

t ruling. A W e re vie w a distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of a 28 U.S.C . § 2255 motion ba se d on ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e of c ounse l de novo. Unite d State s v . Rodrigue

s , 347 F.3d 818, 823 (9th C ir. 2003). Ine ffe c tive a ssista n c e c la im s a

re e va luat e d unde r the twoprong te st a

nnounc e d in Stric k

l and. 466 U.S. a

t 687. To suc c e e d on a S

tric k land c la im , a de fe nda nt m ust provetha

t (1) c ounse l’ s pe rform anc e wa s de fic ie nt, a nd (2) the de fe nda

nt wa s pre

j udic e d by

c ounse l’ s de fic ie nt pe rform anc e . V e ga v . Ry an , 757 F.3d 960, 965 (9th C ir. 2014). B Eve n ha d Postle t

hwa i te ’ s c ounse l pe rform e d de fic ie nt ly

— whic h we a ssum e without de c iding—“ [t] he l ike lihood of a diffe re nt re s ult m

ust be substa

ntia l, not just c onc e iva

ble .” Harrington v. Ric hte r , 562 U.S. 86, 112 (2011).
2Postle thwa ite doe s not m e e t this burden. Se eid. at 104. Thegove rnm e nt

introduc e d vide o surve illa n c e tha t ide ntifie d the de live ry

truc k a s a re d Volvo towing a white Hy unda i tra ile r. At tria l, the gove rnm e nt offe re d the te stim ony of thre e individuals who identifie d Postle thwa ite a s the drive r. The witne sse s a lso te stifie d tha

t Postle thwa ite ope rate d the se c re t c om pa rtm e nt in thetruc k, whe re the drugs we re store d. Furthe rm ore , the gove rnm e nt put forth e vide nc e showing tha t, on m ultiple oc c a sions, Postlet

hwa i te c rosse d the borde r driving the re d Volvo shortly be fore the d rugs we re de live re d, by

this sa m e truc k a

nd tra ile r, to thedistribution ware house in Ke nt, W a shington. The c rux of the prose c ution’ s c a se wa s prove n by the thre e witne sse s a

nd c orroborate d by

the borde r-c rossing re c ords. The e vide n c e a dduc e d at tria l, e ve n e xc luding Postlethwa ite ’ s sta te m e nts, re nde rs no “ re a sona ble proba bility tha t the suc c e ssful [suppre ssion] m otion would ha ve a ffe c te d the outc om e .” V a n Tran v
. Lindse y , 212 F.3d 1143, 1156 (9th C ir. 2000). II The judgm e nt of thedistric t c ourt is A FFIRM E D .

3