FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 21 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-10472
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:09-cr-00103-CRB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CORNELIO MATA ESPINOZA,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 14, 2017**
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Cornelio Mata Espinoza appeals pro se from the district court’s order
denying Espinoza’s motion to alter or amend the judgment denying his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 motion. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
In his section 2255 motion, Espinoza contended that his trial counsel
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
rendered ineffective assistance by advising him to agree in his plea agreement that
he was a career offender for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. The district court
denied the motion on the ground that Espinoza’s counsel was not ineffective for
advising Espinoza to stipulate to being a career offender. Espinoza eventually filed
a motion to alter or amend the district court judgment under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying
Espinoza’s motion because Espinoza failed to present newly discovered evidence
or to demonstrate that the district court’s conclusion that Espinoza had not suffered
ineffective assistance was clearly erroneous, manifestly unjust, or undermined by
an intervening change in controlling law. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah
County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth
standard of review and grounds for relief under Rule 59(e)).
AFFIRMED.
2 15-10472