United States v. Stanley Ames

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: October 21, 2019
• Docket: 18-35134
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 21 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 18-35134

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. Nos. 3:16-cv-01246-BR 3:10-cr-00487-BR-1 v.

STANLEY NOEL AMES, MEMORANDUM*

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Anna J. Brown, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 15, 2019**

Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

Stanley Noel Ames appeals from the district court’s order denying his 28

U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and

we affirm.

Ames contends that his armed bank robbery conviction under 18 U.S.C.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). § 2113(a), (d) does not qualify as a predicate crime of violence under 18 U.S.C.

§ 924(c). This argument is foreclosed. See United States v. Watson, 881 F.3d 782

(9th Cir.), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 203 (2018).

Ames next contends that he is entitled to relief under Dean v. United States,

137 S. Ct. 1170 (2017). This contention also fails. Contrary to Ames’s contention,

Dean did not announce a substantive rule that applies retroactively to cases on

collateral review. See Garcia v. United States, 923 F.3d 1242, 1245-46 (9th Cir.

2019). The district court correctly concluded that Dean does not satisfy section

2255(f)(3) and that this claim is therefore untimely. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1).

Appellee’s motion for summary affirmance is denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.

2 18-35134