Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Calvin Frank MORRIS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-25
Citations: 400 F. App'x 293
Docket Number: No. 09-16130
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Calvin Frank MORRIS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 400
Pages: 293–293

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Calvin Frank MORRIS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-16130.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.
Filed Oct. 25, 2010.
Joan G. Ruffennach, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USPX-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
FDC-Federal Detention Center, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Calvin Frank Morris, pro se.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, 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 Calvin Frank Morris appeals from the district court's judgment denying his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
The district court properly denied Morris' claim of ineffective assistance of counsel because Morris has not established deficient performance by his trial counsel's decisions not to object to the government's alleged amendment of the indictment, or to the Pinkerton instruction. See Rupe v. Wood, 93 F.3d 1434, 1445 (9th Cir.1996) (failure to take a futile action is not deficient performance).
Furthermore, Morris has not established a reasonable probability that a separate jury trial on the issue of drug quantity or a request for a minor role adjustment under the Sentencing Guidelines would have produced a different result given the extensive evidence against him. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.