United States of America v. GARRETT DEAN DOOR, Sr.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
GARRETT DEAN DOOR, Sr.,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 18-35545
D.C. Nos. 1:17-cv-00119-SPW
1:14-cr-00056-SPW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Susan P. Watters, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 19, 2019**
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Garrett Dean Door, Sr., appeals pro se from the district
court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his conviction for
aggravated sexual abuse, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2241(a), and assault with
intent to commit aggravated sexual abuse, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(1).
* 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
FEB 21 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-35545
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review the district court’s denial
of a section 2255 motion de novo, see United States v. Manzo, 675 F.3d 1204,
1209 (9th Cir. 2012), and we affirm.
Door contends that the government failed to prove he has a quantum of
Indian blood and that counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the
sufficiency of the government’s evidence as to this element of Indian status. The
record shows that the government’s evidence of Door’s Indian blood included
testimony by the victim, the FBI agent, another witness, and the tribal enrollment
record. Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution,
Door’s sufficiency of the evidence claim fails. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S.
307, 319 (1979). Furthermore, counsel’s decision not to challenge the sufficiency
of the government’s evidence does not amount to constitutionally deficient
performance. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984).
We treat Door’s arguments regarding the Fifth Amendment, the Fourteenth
Amendment, and newly discovered evidence as a motion to expand the certificate
of appealability. So treated, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); Hiivala
v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --