United States of America v. Robert Alexander Sigouin

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROBERT ALEXANDER SIGOUIN,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 08-17628
D.C. Nos. 1:08-cv-00323-JMS
1:05-cr-00248-JMS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
J. Michael Seabright, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Robert Alexander Sigouin appeals pro se from the district
court’s order denying his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
FILED
SEP 30 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-17628 2
Sigouin contends that his initial trial counsel was ineffective by failing to
adequately prepare for trial, violating attorney-client privilege, and failing to
advise him regarding sentencing issues. This contention fails because Sigouin did
not demonstrate that, but for counsel’s alleged errors, the result of the proceeding
would have been different. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 691-94
(1984).
In addition, we reject Sigouin’s contentions that he received ineffective
assistance from standby counsel after he elected to represent himself. See Faretta
v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 834 n.46 (1975).
We construe Sigouin’s arguments regarding uncertified issues as a motion to
expand the certificate of appealability, and we deny the motion. See 9th Cir. R.
22-1(e); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999) (per
curiam).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --