United States of America v. Dennis Chan Lai

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
DENNIS CHAN LAI,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-16406
D.C. Nos. 3:07-cv-02155-SC
3:87-cr-00359-SC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Samuel Conti, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 16, 2010**
Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Dennis Chan Lai appeals pro se from the district court’s
order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as second or successive. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
FILED
NOV 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-16406 2
The record reflects that Lai had filed a section 2255 motion on November
11, 1995, which this court rejected on the merits. Lai subsequently filed another
section 2255 motion on April 13, 2007. The district court properly dismissed that
motion because Lai had not obtained an order from this Court authorizing it to
consider the motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); Cooper v. Calderon, 274
F.3d 1270, 1274 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam).
To the extent Lai is applying for an order authorizing a second or successive
petition, such request is denied. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(C).
We construe Lai’s additional arguments as a motion to expand the certificate
of appealability. So construed, the motion is also 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 --