United States v. Gettings

114 F. App'x 859
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided December 9, 2004·No. No. 04-15207; D.C. No. CV-03-02093-WBS·Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM**

Former federal prisoner Jimmy L. Get-tings appeals pro se the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo, see United States v. Navarro, 160 F.3d 1254, 1255 (9th Cir.1998), and we affirm.

Gettings contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in many respects throughout trial. We disagree. Gettings failed to show that but for these alleged errors, there was a “reasonable probability” that the outcome of trial would have been different. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

To the extent Gettings raises other contentions not certified for appeal, we construe his contentions as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability, and we deny the motion. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam).

To the extent Gettings raises contentions for the first time on appeal, those are waived. See Belgarde v. Montana, 123 F.3d 1210, 1216 (9th Cir.1997).

AFFIRMED.

Footnotes

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

United States v. Gettings, 114 F. App'x 859 (9th Cir. 2004).

114 F. App'x 859 (United States v. Gettings) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Strickland v. Washington
466 U.S. 668 (Supreme Court, 1984)
United States v. Anthony Navarro
160 F.3d 1254 (Ninth Circuit, 1998)
Todd Hiivala v. Tana Wood
195 F.3d 1098 (Ninth Circuit, 1999)
Belgarde v. Montana
123 F.3d 1210 (Ninth Circuit, 1997)