
    Rajinder Singh JOHAL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 09-35407.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 25, 2010.
    
    Filed June 14, 2010.
    Rajinder Singh Johal, Taft, CA, pro se.
    Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Richard Edward Cohen, Michael Symington Morgan, Sarah Y. Vogel, Assistant U.S. Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Federal prisoner Rajinder Singh Johal appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Johal contends that he is entitled to a sentencing reduction under United States v. Santos, 553 U.S. 507, 128 S.Ct. 2020, 170 L.Ed.2d 912 (2008), because the district court enhanced his sentence based upon the gross receipts rather than the net profits of his money laundering offense. This contention is foreclosed because no merger problem of the kind posed in Santos exists in this case. See United States v. Van Alstyne, 584 F.3d 803, 814-17 (9th Cir.2009) (reasoning that, under 18 U.S.C. § 1956 and the relevant Guidelines, “ ‘proceeds’ means ‘profits’ where viewing ‘proceeds’ as ‘receipts’ would present a ‘merger’ problem of the kind that troubled the plurality and concurrence in Santos ”).

Johal also contends that the district court erred by resolving his section 2255 motion without holding an evidentiary hearing. This contention lacks merit. See United States v. Johnson, 988 F.2d 941, 945 (9th Cir.1993) (“Merely eonclusory statements in a § 2255 motion are not enough to require a hearing.”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

Because we affirm on the merits, we do not address the Government’s untimeliness and procedural bar arguments.

Johal’s motion for expedited appeal is granted.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     