United States of America v. Omar Lizarraga-Cedano

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).
sko/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
OMAR LIZARRAGA-CEDANO,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 07-35846
D.C. Nos. CR-04-00015-FVS
CV-06-00276-FVS
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Fred L. Van Sickle, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Omar Lizarraga-Cedano appeals pro se from the district
court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 habeas motion. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
FILED
MAR 08 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

sko/Research 07-35846 2
Lizarraga-Cedano contends that counsel was ineffective for failing to
adequately challenge 1) the probation officer’s recommended 2-level increase to
the offense level; 2) the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conspiracy
conviction; and 3) the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his possession
conviction.
Each of these contentions lacks merit because Lizarraga-Cedano has failed
to demonstrate a reasonable probability that the outcome of trial would have been
different, but for counsel’s alleged errors. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.
668, 694, 697 (1984).
We construe appellant’s additional arguments 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).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --