United States of America v. Leslie Charles Cohen

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
DAT/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LESLIE CHARLES COHEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 07-15898
D.C. Nos. CV-04-00933-JAT
CR-01-00099-JAT
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 11, 2010**
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Leslie Charles Cohen appeals pro se from the district court’s denial of his
28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and
we affirm the district court.
FILED
JAN 26 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

DAT/Research 07-15898 2
Cohen contends that the district court erred by rejecting his various
ineffective assistance of counsel claims, including that his trial counsel lacked
experienced and had never previously tried a federal case. We agree with the
district court that Cohen has not established deficient performance or prejudice
under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). We reject Cohen’s
remaining contentions concerning ineffective assistance of counsel for the reasons
stated by the district court. See id.
Cohen also raises numerous uncertified issues. We construe such argument
as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is
denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05
(9th Cir. 1999) (per curiam).
Cohen’s motion to file a supplemental brief is granted. The Clerk shall file
the supplemental brief received on October 23, 2009.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --