United States v. Pizzichiello

201 F. App'x 503
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided September 14, 2006·No. No. 04-35297·Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Lawrence John Pizzichiello appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his conviction for robbery affecting commerce, in violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Appellant contends that the district court was without jurisdiction to enter a judgment of conviction for violating the [504] Hobbs Act, in light of the disposition of his co-defendant’s case in United States v. Lynch, 282 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir.2002).

We agree with the government that because appellant failed to raise this issue on direct appeal and failed to demonstrate cause and prejudice or actual innocence, his contention is procedurally defaulted. See United States v. Ratigan, 351 F.3d 957, 962-64 (9th Cir.2003).

Alternatively, even if we were to reach the merits, appellant’s contention is defeated by United States v. Lynch, 437 F.3d 902, 910-11 (9th Cir.2006) (per curiam) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.

Footnotes

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

United States v. Pizzichiello, 201 F. App'x 503 (9th Cir. 2006).

201 F. App'x 503 (United States v. Pizzichiello) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. John Lynch
282 F.3d 1049 (Ninth Circuit, 2002)
United States v. Brian Edward Ratigan
351 F.3d 957 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)
United States v. John Lanny Lynch
437 F.3d 902 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)