UNITED STATES v. LAWRENCE (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

Dallas Lawrence appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his conviction and 240-month sentence for aggravated sexual abuse, assault with intent to commit murder, assault with a dangerous weapon, and strangulation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo the district court's denial of a section 2255 motion, see United States v. Manzo, 675 F.3d 1204, 1209 (9th Cir. 2012), and we affirm.

Lawrence contends that trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to move, on double jeopardy grounds, for dismissal of the strangulation counts as lesser-included offenses of the assault with intent to commit murder counts. Lawrence's convictions did not result in double jeopardy because the applicable statutes, 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(8), each contain an additional element that the other does not. See Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932); United States v. McElmurry, 776 F.3d 1061, 1064-65 (9th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, Lawrence cannot show that trial counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

Lawrence's motion to expand the certificate of appealability is denied. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104 (9th Cir. 1999).

All other pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.