FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 05 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 08-56637
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. Nos. 8:06-cv-00046-DOC
8:02-cr-00053-DOC
v.
GUY CHRISTOPHER BROOKS, MEMORANDUM *
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 13, 2010 **
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Guy Christopher Brooks appeals pro se from the district
court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his 2002 jury-trial
conviction for bank robbery and his sentence of 210 months imprisonment. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(a), and we affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Brooks contends that his trial and appellate counsel rendered ineffective
assistance when they failed to challenge the district court’s reliance on the
Presentence Report (“PSR”) to substantiate a 1990 state burglary conviction used
as part of the basis for Brooks’s “career offender” enhancement under United
States Sentencing Guidelines (“U.S.S.G.”) sections 4B1.1 and 4B1.2. Brooks does
not challenge the PSR’s factual accuracy but argues that the PSR was not a
judicially noticeable document that the trial court could rely on in imposing a
career offender enhancement.
Brooks’s contention that the undisputed PSR was insufficient to establish the
predicate burglary conviction is foreclosed. See United States v. Romero-Rendon,
220 F.3d 1159, 1160, 1161, 1163 (9th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, counsel was not
ineffective for failing to raise this argument in the district court or on appeal. See
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984).
We construe Brooks’s remaining arguments as a motion to expand the
certificate of appealability, and we deny the motion, as Brooks has made no
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104 (9th Cir. 1999); 9th Cir. R.
22-1(e).
AFFIRMED.
2 08-56637