N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNIT E D ST AT E S CO URT O F APPE AL S FO R T H E NINT H CIRCUIT
UNIT E D ST A T E S O F AM E RICA, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. RO B E RT O ’CAM PO , AK A Se al S, AK AW ic ke d, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 12-56668

D.C . Nos. 8:10-c v-00169-DOC 8:05-c r-00124-DOC -19 M E M O RANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Dav id O. C arte r, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Ja

n u ary 6, 2015 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : K O Z INSKI , W ARDL AWand W . FL E T CH E R , C irc uit Judge s.
R obe rt O’ C am

p o wa s c onvic te d of c onspiring to posse ss m e tha m phe tam ine with inte nt to distribute . The distric t c ourt inc re a se d his offe nse le ve l by two for 

# F IL ED
APR 16 2015 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 pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).pa ge 2

posse s sion of a

fire arm . Se e U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1). O’ C am po’ s se nte nc e wa s
a ffirm e d on dire c t a

p pe a l
. Unite d State s v. O’ C am po, 265 F. App’ x 680 (9th C ir. 2008). O’ C am

po subse que ntly

file d a pro se m otion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 2255 to
va c ate his se nte nc e on se ve ra l grounds inc luding ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l. The distric t c ourt de nie d the m otion. On this a ppe a l, through c ounse l, O’ C am po
ra ise s only

one c la im

of ine ffe c tive a ssista

n c e at se nte nc i ng. He c l a im s tha t tria l
c ounse l wa s ine ffe c tive in opposing the two-le v e l inc re a se be c a

u se his a rgum e nts
we re fore c lose d

by Ninth C irc uit la

w, a nd c la im s tha

t c o unse l should ha

ve inste a d
argue d tha t the re wa s insuffic ie nt e vide nc e of “ posse s sion” of a fire a rm . 1 Eve n if c ounse l’ s strate gy wa s obje c tive ly

unre a sona

ble , O’ C am

po’ s ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e c la im fa ils be c a

use he c an’ t

show a “ re a sona

ble proba bility ” that , but for c ounse l ’ s a lle ge dly e rrone ous a

rgum e nt, the two-le ve l inc re a se for posse s sing a

fire a rm wouldn’ t ha

ve be e n a pplie d. Stric kla

nd v. W a shington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984). The distric t c ourt didn’ t re l y on the a lle ge d “ c onc e ssion” O’ C am p o c la im s his c ounse l m a de . Inste a d, it found tha t, “ a c c ording to the

ta pe s,” O’ C am p o “ ta lks a

bout a nd a dm its a

tte m pting to se ll a ha

ndgun a n d posse ssing tha

t

1 Although this c la im

is ba se d on a diffe re nt le ga l the ory tha n O’ C am po’ s pro se m otion, “ t

he issue pre se nte d is pure ly one of la w ” and the gove rnm e nt, whic h ha s brie fe d

the issue on the m e rits, “ w ill suffe r no pre judic e a s a

re sult of the fa ilure to ra ise the issue in the tria l c ourt.” Alle n v. Ornoski, 435 F.3d 946, 960 (9th C ir. 2006). W e t

he re fore de c ide this a

p pe a l on the m e rits.pa ge 3

ha ndgun.” W e m ay

c onside r the distric t judge ’ s “ a c tua l proc e ss of de c i sion” whe n de te rm i ning pre

judic e be c a

u s e it’ s “pa

rt of the re c ord of the proc e e ding unde r
re vie w.” Id. at

695. On dire c t a

p pe a l , we a lso didn’ t re ly on a ny “ c onc e ssion” of posse ssion. R athe r, we sta

te d tha t the distric t c ourt “p rope rly de te rm ine d tha

t O’ C am p o posse s se d a

fire arm during the c om

m ission of the c onspira c y . ” O’ C a m po, 265 F. App’ x at 681 (c iting Unite d State s v. Lope z -San d ova l , 146 F.3d 712, 715 (9th C ir. 1998)). Inde e d, the gove rnm e n t’ s e v ide nc e , inc luding O’ C am po’ s sta te m e n t tha

t he wa s “ hoping to ge t

rid of” a fire arm and his offe r to se ll it to Dia z , strongly supports the

distric t c ourt’ s finding tha t O’ C am po posse sse d a

fire arm . Se e Unite d Stat e s v. Shirle y , 884 F.2d 1130, 1134 (9th C ir. 1989); se e a lso Lope z -Sandova l, 146 F.3d a

t 714–15; Unite d State s v. Ste wart, 926 F.2d 899, 901–02 (9th C ir. 1991). Thus, there isn’ t a re a sona ble proba bility that, ha d c ounse l m a d e the
argum e nt O’ C a

m po c la im s he should ha

v e , the distric t c ourt would ha ve de c line d to a p ply the e nha nc e m e nt. O’ C am po doe sn’ t a

rgue tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d in dismissing a ny of his othe r c la i m s. He ha s thus wa i v e d a ny e rror with re spe c t

to the se c l a im s.
AFFIRM E D.