United States v. Ameen Abdul-Jillil

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 24 2011 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 10-35367 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. Nos. 3:09-cv-00020-RRB 3:04-cr-00070-RRB v. AMEEN ABDUL-JILLIL, MEMORANDUM * Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Alaska Ralph R. Beistline, Chief District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 8, 2011 ** Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Federal prisoner Ameen Abdul-Jillil appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. §2255 habeas motion. 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). Abdul-Jillil contends that his reliance on counsel’s misleading advice regarding the potential sentence rendered his guilty pleas invalid. Irrespective of counsel’s advice, Abdul-Jillil was adequately informed, by both the plea agreement and the judge, that he might be sentenced to more than 135 months. Additionally, Abdul-Jillil orally confirmed to the court that he understood the terms and maximum sentence stated in the plea agreement before he entered his guilty pleas. Accordingly, Abdul-Jillil has failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by counsel’s performance. See Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 57-59 (1985) (applying Strickland two-part test to guilty pleas); see also Womack v. Del Papa, 497 F.3d 998, 1003-04 (9th Cir. 2007). Abdul-Jillil’s motion to file late excerpts of record and for relief from default is granted. AFFIRMED. 2 10-35367