Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Colin NATHANSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-10-30
Citations: 585 F. App'x 615
Docket Number: No. 13-56410
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Colin NATHANSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: TALLMAN, BEA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 585
Pages: 615–616

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Colin NATHANSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-56410.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Oct. 7, 2014.
Filed Oct. 30, 2014.
Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Robert J. Keenan, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Santa Ana, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Kurt David Hermansen, Esquire, Law OFC of Kurt David Hermansen, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Colin Nathanson, pro se.
Before: TALLMAN, BEA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Colin Nathanson appeals the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his 324-month sentence for mail fraud. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(d), and we affirm.
Nathanson has not shown that counsel s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness." See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Appellate counsel are not required to raise every nonfrivolous claim in a merits brief, and " '[generally, only when ignored issues are clearly stronger than those presented, will the presumption of effective assistance of counsel be overcome.' " Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259, 288, 120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756 (2000) (quoting Gray v. Greer, 800 F.2d 644, 646 (7th Cir.1986)). It was not clear that a due process claim based on Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660, 103 S.Ct. 2064, 76 L.Ed.2d 221 (1983), would have been stronger than the claims Na-thanson's counsel actually raised.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.