United States v. Larry Jordan (9th Cir. 2018). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Larry Jordan (9th Cir. 2018). Book View Copy Cite
No syfertize treatment data for cluster 4525285.
United States
v.
Larry Jordan
16-56288.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Aug 9, 2018.
Unpublished  |  Habeas

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 9 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-56288

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. Nos. 2:14-cv-04000-RSWL 2:05-cr-00920-RSWL-4 v. LARRY JORDAN, AKA Big Al, AKA Al MEMORANDUM* Jordan,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Ronald S.W. Lew, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 7, 2018** Pasadena, California Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Larry Jordan appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition to vacate and set aside his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to rob an armored truck. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253 and

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). affirm.[1] reasonable. Jordan maintained for the first three years of his case that he had not been present during the robbery, despite the robbers having used his van as a getaway vehicle. Under Jordan’s version of events, on which counsel was permitted to rely, there was no reason for counsel to thoroughly investigate what had happened at the scene. See Bean v. Calderon, 163 F.3d 1073, 1082 (9th Cir. 1998) (holding that counsel’s failure to further investigate one line of defense was not deficient “[i]n light of [his client’s] assertion . . . that he had not been at the [crime scene] at the time of the crimes”). We accord deference to counsel’s decision to focus on developing other aspects of the defense and find that decision reasonable here. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687–90.

[*2][*3]

the relevant, material facts from the criminal record and the supplemental documents submitted in the § 2255 proceeding. See Shah, 878 F.2d at 1159 (“[R]ather than conduct a hearing, courts may use discovery or documentary evidence to expand the record.”); cf. United States v. Howard, 381 F.3d 873, 880–

81 (9th Cir. 2004) (remanding for evidentiary hearing where key facts were not in record). Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding that an evidentiary hearing was not necessary.

AFFIRMED.

[*4]
1 As the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history, we restate them only as necessary to explain our decision.
2 Jordan argues that the district court erred in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on his petition. The district court did not abuse its discretion because “the files and records of the case conclusively show that [Jordan] is entitled to no relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b); Rodrigues, 347 F.3d at 823. The relevant interactions occurred on the record, before the same district court that denied Jordan’s petition. See Shah v. United States, 878 F.2d 1156, 1159 (9th Cir. 1989) (“[J]udges may use their own notes and recollections . . . to supplement the record.”); cf. United States v. Burrows, 872 F.2d 915, 917 (9th Cir. 1989) (remanding for evidentiary hearing where the petitioner’s claims “raise[d] facts which occurred out of the courtroom and off the record”). The district court had