10-3299 United States v. Durham



### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS **FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT**



## SUMMARY ORDER

**R ULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT**  **. C**  **ITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER**  **J ANUARY**  **1, 2007,**  **IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY F**  **EDERAL R** **ULE OF A**  **PPELLATE P**  **ROCEDURE 32.1**  **AND THIS COURT ’**  **S L**  **OCAL R** **ULE 32.1.1.**  **W HEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A**  **DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT ,**  **A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE F**  **EDERAL A**  **PPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE**  **( WITH THE NOTATION**  **“ SUMMARY ORDER**  **”). A**  **PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL**  **. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals**  1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan** 2 **United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of** 3 **New York, on the 5 th** **day of March, two thousand twelve.** 4 5 **PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,** 6 **Chief Judge ,**  7 **GUIDO CALABRESI,** 8 **ROSEMARY S. POOLER,** 9 **Circuit Judges**

**.** 10 11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 12 **UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,** 13 **Appellee ,**  14 15 **-v.- 10-3299** 16 17 **SPENCER B. DURHAM,** 18 **Defendant-Appellant**

**.** 19 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 20 21 **FOR APPELLANT:** Paúl Camarena, North & Sedgwick, 22 L.L.C., Chicago, Ill. 23 24 **FOR APPELLEE:** Eugenia A.P. Cowles, Gregory L. 25 Waples, Assistant United States 26 Attorneys, for Tristram J. 27

1Coffin, United States Attorney 1 for the District of Vermont, 2 Burlington, Vt. 3 4 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District 5 Court for the District of Vermont (Sessions, C.J. ). 6 7 **UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED** 8 **AND DECREED**that the judgment of the district court be 9 **AFFIRMED**

. 10 11 Spencer Durham appeals the denial of his motion, filed 12 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, seeking to vacate his sentence 13 for obstruction of mail. We assume the parties’ familiarity 14 with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the 15 issues presented for review. 16 “A defendant claiming ineffective assistance must (1) 17 demonstrate that his counsel’s performance ‘fell below an 18 objective standard of reasonableness’ in light of 19 ‘prevailing professional norms,’ . . . and (2) 20 ‘affirmatively prove prejudice’ arising from counsel’s 21 allegedly deficient representation.” United States v. 22 Cohen , 427 F.3d 164, 167 (2d Cir. 2005) (quoting Strickland 23 v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 688, 693 (1984)). “[A] lawyer 24 who disregards a defendant’s specific instruction to file a 25 notice of appeal acts in a manner that is professionally 26 unreasonable . . . .” Campusano v. United States , 442 F.3d 27 770, 773 (2d Cir. 2006) ( citing Roe v. Flores-Ortega , 528 28 U.S. 470, 477 (2000)). Durham’s counsel did not file a 29 notice of appeal despite Durham’s timely request. 30 However, after the deadline to file such a notice 31 passed, but at a time when his counsel could still have 32 filed a motion for an extension, Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4), 33 Durham withdrew his request. Accordingly, Durham is not 34 entitled to relief. Cf. Campusano , 442 F.3d at 773 35 (“[W]here counsel’s error leads to ‘the forfeiture of a 36 proceeding itself,’ prejudice will be presumed.” (quoting 37 Flores-Ortega , 528 U.S. at 483-84)). 38 39 Finding no merit in Durham’s remaining arguments, we 40 hereby **AFFIRM** the judgment of the district court. 41 42 FOR THE COURT: 43 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK 44 45 46

2