UNITED STATES v. AMES (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

Stanley Noel Ames appeals from the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Ames contends that his armed bank robbery conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (d) does not qualify as a predicate crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). This argument is foreclosed. See United States v. Watson, 881 F.3d 782 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 203, 202 L.Ed.2d 139 (2018).

Ames next contends that he is entitled to relief under Dean v. United States, ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S. Ct. 1170, 197 L.Ed.2d 490 (2017). This contention also fails. Contrary to Ames's contention, Dean did not announce a substantive rule that applies retroactively to cases on collateral review. See Garcia v. United States, 923 F.3d 1242, 1245-46 (9th Cir. 2019). The district court correctly concluded that Dean does not satisfy section 2255(f)(3) and that this claim is therefore untimely. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1).

Appellee's motion for summary affirmance is denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.