Case ID: f-appx_540/html/0793-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus Pacheco LOZANO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-35876.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 24, 2013.
    
    Filed Oct. 3, 2013.
    Byron Chatfield, USME-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Medford, OR, Kelly A. Zus-man, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Thomas J. Hester, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDOR-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Portland, OR, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Jesus Pacheco Lozano, pro se.
    
      Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, 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 Jesus Pacheco Lozano appeals from the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2258. We review a district court’s denial of a section 2255 motion de novo, United States v. Manzo, 675 F.3d 1204, 1209 (9th Cir.2012), and we affirm.

Lozano challenges his 2008 guilty-plea conviction of possession with intent to distribute 50 or more grams of actual methamphetamine on the ground that his counsel was ineffective by failing to inform him of the possible immigration consequences of his plea, as required under Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010). The district court properly denied Lozano’s motion because he cannot demonstrate prejudice. Lozano was informed of the possible immigration consequences by the plea agreement and at the plea colloquy, and he has not shown that “a decision to reject the plea bargain would have been rational under the circumstances.” See Padilla, 559 U.S. at 372, 130 S.Ct. 1473.

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