United States v. Cyrus Sullivan , 700 F. App'x 773 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 9 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-35270
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. Nos. 3:15-cv-01082-HZ
3:13-cr-00064-HZ-01
v.
CYRUS ANDREW SULLIVAN, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Marco A. Hernandez, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted October 6, 2017
Portland, Oregon
Before: PAEZ and BEA, Circuit Judges, and ANELLO,** District Judge.
Cyrus Sullivan appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255
motion to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence he received after he pleaded
guilty to making a threatening communication in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 875(c).
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 2253. We review de novo both a
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable Michael M. Anello, United States District Judge for
the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.
district court’s denial of a section 2255 motion, and a claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel. United States v. Manzo, 675 F.3d 1204, 1209 (9th Cir.
2012). We affirm.
The district court granted a certificate of appealability (“COA”) on the issue
of whether Sullivan’s trial counsel was ineffective in advising Sullivan to plead
guilty to a Superseding Information, which omitted the specific intent element of
18 U.S.C. § 875(c). To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim,
Sullivan must show that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard
of reasonableness and that he was prejudiced as a result. Strickland v. Washington,
466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984). In order to satisfy the prejudice requirement,
Sullivan must show that “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s
errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.”
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985).
We do not reach the issue of counsel’s performance, as Sullivan is unable to
demonstrate that he suffered prejudice. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 (courts
may address the prejudice requirement first “[i]f it is easier to dispose of an
ineffectiveness claim on [that] ground”). First, Sullivan argues he suffered
prejudice because after pleading guilty, counsel did not file a motion to arrest
judgment pursuant to the then-existing Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 34.
Sullivan did not raise this argument in his section 2255 motion, but rather raised it
2 16-35270
for the first time in his post-judgment motions. The district court declined to issue
a COA regarding Sullivan’s motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Because Sullivan’s Rule 34 argument does not fall
within the narrow issue certified by the district court for appeal, this argument is
not properly before the Court. See United States v. Winkles, 795 F.3d 1134, 1142
(9th Cir. 2015) (holding a COA is required to appeal the denial of a Rule 60(b)
motion arising in a section 2255 proceeding).
Second, Sullivan contends he was prejudiced because the Superseding
Information did not provide adequate notice of the requisite mental state for the
offense to which he pleaded guilty. The record, however, evidences that Sullivan
was repeatedly informed of the elements both before and during the plea hearing
and that he “underst[ood] the intent element of the crime to which a plea of guilty
[was] entered.” United States v. Bigman, 906 F.2d 392, 394 (9th Cir. 1990).
Accordingly, Sullivan has not shown that there is a reasonable probability that, but
for his attorney’s error, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted
on going to trial. See Hill, 474 U.S. at 59.
Sullivan further claims he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his
section 2255 motion. We review a district court’s denial of a request for an
evidentiary hearing for abuse of discretion. Sully v. Ayers, 725 F.3d 1057, 1067
(9th Cir. 2013). We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by
3 16-35270
denying Sullivan’s section 2255 motion without an evidentiary hearing because the
pleadings and record conclusively establish that Sullivan is not entitled to relief.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b).
Finally, Sullivan raises additional arguments that are not included in the
COA. “In federal habeas corpus proceedings, the exercise of appellate jurisdiction
is dependent entirely upon the issuance of a COA.” United States v. Grace, 526
F.3d 499, 522 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (quoting Phelps v. Alameda, 366 F.3d 722,
726 (9th Cir. 2004)) (internal quotations and alterations omitted). We may expand
the COA, but “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of
a constitutional right.” See Murray v. Schriro, 745 F.3d 984, 1002 (9th Cir. 2014)
(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)). Because Sullivan has not made such a showing,
we decline to expand the COA.
AFFIRMED.
4 16-35270