Case ID: f-appx_120/html/0135-01.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. Maurillo ROJAS-MILLAN, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 04-15916.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 10, 2005.
    
    Decided Jan. 14, 2005.
    Ronald C. Rachow, AUSA, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Reno, NV, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    Daniel G. Bogden, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Maurillo Rojas-Millan, Yazoo City, MS, pro se.
    Before: BEEZER, HALL and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Federal prisoner Maurillo Rojas-Millan appeals the judgment of the district court denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, alter, or set aside his sentence. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Rojas-Millan contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to inform him of a plea offer by the government. Even assuming that this allegation is true, RojasMillan has failed to. show “that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Strickland, v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). The district court therefore properly denied this claim.

Rojas-Millan further contends that the district court erred in failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing. Because the files and records conclusively show that Rojas-Millan is not entitled to relief, the district court acted within its discretion in denying his § 2255 motion without an evidentiary hearing. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255; see also United States v. Blaylock, 20 F.3d 1458, 1465 (9th Cir.1994) (In deciding whether petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his claim, the district court should determine whether, accepting the truth of petitioner’s factual allegations, he could prevail on an ineffective assistance claim.).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.