Case ID: f-appx_407/html/0255-01.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. Armando Garcia RICO, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 08-55885.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 14, 2010.
    
    Filed Jan. 5, 2011.
    Sherilyn Peace Garnett, Esquire, Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Armando Garcia Rico, Taft, CA, pro se.
    Gary Paul Burcham, Burcham & Zugman, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, 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 Armando Garcia Rico appeals from the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion for relief. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2258, and we affirm.

Rico contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to appeal the district court’s sentence following a limited remand under United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). Counsel here did not have a constitutionally imposed duty to consult with Rico about an appeal and therefore did not provide ineffective assistance by not filing an appeal. See Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 480, 120 S.Ct. 1029, 145 L.Ed.2d 985 (2000).

Rico’s motion to supplement the record is denied. See Fed. R.App. P. 10(e); Morrison v. Hall, 261 F.3d 896, 900 n. 4 (9th Cir.2001).

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