Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tracy Eldon LEWIS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-04-01
Citations: 373 F. App'x 669
Docket Number: No. 07-35769
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tracy Eldon LEWIS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 373
Pages: 669–670

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tracy Eldon LEWIS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-35769.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 16, 2010.
Filed April 1, 2010.
Joseph E. Thaggard, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Helena, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
David F. Ness, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Defenders of Montana, Great Falls, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
Tracy Eldon Lewis, Adelanto, CA, pro se.
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Federal prisoner Tracy Eldon Lewis appeals from the district court's order denying his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we vacate and remand for an evidentiary hearing.
Lewis contends that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to file a notice of appeal. The Government agrees this claim is controlled by United States v. Sandoval-Lopez, 409 F.3d 1193, 1197-98 (9th Cir.2005), which holds that it is ineffective assistance of counsel to refuse to file a notice of appeal when requested, even if doing so is contrary to a plea agreement. Accordingly, we remand this claim to the district court for an evi-dentiary hearing as required by Sandoval-Lopez.
Lewis' motion to expand the certificate of appealability is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-l(e); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.1999) (per cu-riam).
VACATED and REMANDED for an evidentiary hearing.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.