United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Dean Dahman, Defendant-appellant, 145 F.3d 1341 (9th Cir. 1998)

Dean Dahman claims that the district court erred by denying his § 2255 motion to vacate his conviction and sentence for bank robbery. Dahman argues that, in light of our decision in United States v. Parks, 89 F.3d 570 (9th Cir. 1996), his failure to pay restitution and costs pursuant to an Arkansas state conviction was an improper basis upon which to add two criminal history points under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(d) for being under a criminal justice sentence. Because he did not challenge the district court's two point criminal history assessment based on his non-payment of restitution and costs in Arkansas either at sentencing or on direct appeal, Dahman must "demonstrate (1) 'cause' excusing his double procedural default, and (2) 'actual prejudice' resulting from the error of which he complains in order to assert the challenge in a § 2255 petition. United States v. Dunham, 767 F.2d 1395, 1397 (9th Cir. 1985) (internal citation omitted). Dahman does not show cause for his failure to raise his due process and equal protection claims either at sentencing or on direct appeal.

AFFIRMED.