FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 23 2010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. 08-17669
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. Nos. 4:08-cv-00180-DCB
4:03-cr-00717-DCB
v.
LEONEL ERNESTO VILLASENOR, MEMORANDUM *
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 29, 2010 **
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Leonel Ernesto Villasenor appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment denying his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, 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).
Villasenor contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel
because his counsel failed to advise him of the effect of his career offender status
on his potential sentence before he rejected plea offers. The district court did not
err by determining that Villasenor was advised of the effect on his sentence.
Therefore, Villasenor’s contention fails. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.
668, 687-88 (1984); see also United States v. Leonti, 326 F.3d 1111, 1120-22 (9th
Cir. 2003).
Villasenor also contends that he received ineffective assistance because his
counsel failed to challenge on direct appeal the denial of his motion to suppress
certain statements. This contention fails because his counsel was not deficient in
failing to challenge the denial of the motion, and Villasenor cannot demonstrate
prejudice because this issue did not have a reasonable probability of prevailing on
appeal. See United States v. Baker, 256 F.3d 855, 862-63 (9th Cir. 2001).
Contrary to Villasenor’s contention, the district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion without an evidentiary hearing.
See Shah v. United States, 878 F.2d 1156, 1160 (9th Cir. 1989).
AFFIRMED.
2 08-17669