United States of America v. Petro Snegirev

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
PETRO SNEGIREV,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 08-35336
D.C. No. 3:05-cr-00024-JWS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Alaska
John W. Sedwick, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted July 27, 2010
Anchorage, Alaska
Before: SCHROEDER, O’SCANNLAIN and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Petro Snegirev appeals the district court’s denial of his motion under 28
U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his sentence for the sale and possession of
methamphetamine. Snegirev claims he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to
effective counsel because his trial counsel failed to challenge Drug Enforcement
FILED
AUG 25 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Agency (“DEA”) evidence of drug purity and raise certain defenses. We review a
motion to vacate under § 2255 de novo. See United States v. Guess, 203 F.3d
1143, 1145 (9th Cir. 2000).
Snegirev cannot demonstrate that he was prejudiced by his lawyer’s failure
to challenge DEA evidence of drug purity at trial because drug purity was not at
issue during the guilt phase. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687
(1984). Rather, the issue at trial was whether he sold and possessed
methamphetamine at all. Snegirev has never suggested he sold and possessed
something other than methamphetamine.
Snegirev also cannot demonstrate that counsel’s failure to raise certain
defenses prejudiced him. See id. An entrapment defense would have failed
because Snegirev was predisposed to sell drugs. See United States v. Sandoval-
Mendoza, 472 F.3d 645, 648-50 (9th Cir. 2006). A defense that Snegirev did not
intend to sell the drugs found in his possession would have not succeeded because
he possessed an amount of methamphetamine well in excess of what is consistent
with personal use. See United States v. Johnson, 357 F.3d 980, 984 & n.11 (9th
Cir. 2004). His brief provides no argument in support of the assertion that his
lawyer should have sought to dismiss the indictment on the basis of outrageous

-- 2 of 3 --

3
government conduct. See Nw. Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841
F.2d 918, 923 (9th Cir. 1988).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --