USA V. COLIN NATHANSON, No. 13-56410 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCTOBER 30 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 13-56410 D.C. Nos. 8:12-cv-01978-CJC 8:05-cr-00301-CJC-1 v. COLIN NATHANSON, MEMORANDUM* Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted October 7, 2014 Pasadena, California Before: TALLMAN, BEA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Colin Nathanson appeals the district court s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his 324-month sentence for mail fraud. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(d), and we affirm. Nathanson has not shown that counsel s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. 668, 687-88 (1984). Appellate counsel are not required to raise every nonfrivolous claim in a merits brief, and [g]enerally, only when ignored issues are clearly stronger than those presented, will the presumption of effective assistance of counsel be overcome. Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259, 288 (2000) (quoting Gray v. Greer, 800 F.2d 644, 646 (7th Cir. 1986)). It was not clear that a due process claim based on Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983), would have been stronger than the claims Nathanson s counsel actually raised. AFFIRMED. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
