
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Colin NATHANSON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-56410.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Oct. 7, 2014.
    Filed Oct. 30, 2014.
    Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Robert J. Keenan, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Santa Ana, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Kurt David Hermansen, Esquire, Law OFC of Kurt David Hermansen, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Colin Nathanson, pro se.
    Before: TALLMAN, BEA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

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. 668, 687-88, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Appellate counsel are not required to raise every nonfrivolous claim in a merits brief, and “ ‘[generally, 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, 120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756 (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, 103 S.Ct. 2064, 76 L.Ed.2d 221 (1983), would have been stronger than the claims Na-thanson’s counsel actually raised.

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