UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stanley Noel AMES, Defendant-Appellant.
Decided: October 21, 2019
Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Suzanne Miles, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Kelly A. Zusman, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-USAO, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellee Elizabeth Gillingham Daily, Attorney, Stephen R. Sady, Attorney, FPDOR - Federal Public Defender's Office, Portland, OR, for Defendant-Appellant
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.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.