Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Lewis BROWN, Sr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-06-30
Citations: 328 F. App'x 412
Docket Number: No. 07-35929
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Lewis BROWN, Sr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: PAEZ, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 328
Pages: 412–412

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Lewis BROWN, Sr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-35929.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 16, 2009.
Filed June 30, 2009.
Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Annette L. Hayes, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Suzanne Lee Elliott, Esquire, Law Offices of Suzanne Lee Elliott, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
James Lewis Brown, Sr., Florence, CO, pro se.
Before: PAEZ, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Federal prisoner James Lewis Brown, Sr., appeals from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Brown contends that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel because during re-sentencing proceedings, counsel failed to adequately present favorable evidence regarding the drug quantity attributable to him. We agree with the district court that this claim lacks merit. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).
Brown also contends that the district court abused its discretion by denying his § 2255 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We disagree. See United States v. Rodrigues, 347 F.3d 818, 824, 827 (9th Cir.2003).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.