United States of America v. Dallas Lawrence

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
DALLAS LAWRENCE,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 18-35603
D.C. Nos. 4:17-cv-00101-BMM
4:14-cr-00072-BMM-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Brian M. Morris, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 15, 2019**
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
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.
* 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).
FILED
JUL 17 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-35603
§ 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 (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 (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.

-- 2 of 2 --