Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James BROOMFIELD, a/k/a Biscuit, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-12-29
Citations: 305 F. App'x 441
Docket Number: No. 06-56585
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. James BROOMFIELD, a/k/a Biscuit, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 305
Pages: 441–441

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. James BROOMFIELD, a/k/a Biscuit, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 06-56585.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 17, 2008.
Filed Dec. 29, 2008.
Becky S. Walker, Esq., Michael Z. Wei-back, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
James Broomfield, Federal Correctional Institution, Terminal Island, CA, pro se.
Before: GOODWIN, TROTT and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
James Broomfield appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo, Sanchez v. United States, 50 F.3d 1448, 1451 (9th Cir.1995), and we affirm.
Broomfield contends that appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to appeal the denial of his motion for appointment of an expert chemist. We conclude that counsel was not ineffective in failing to raise the denial of the motion, and that Broomfield cannot demonstrate prejudice by this omission because this claim did not have a reasonable probability of succeeding on appeal. See Miller v. Keeney, 882 F.2d 1428, 1433-35 (9th Cir.1989).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.