Case ID: f-appx_122/html/0887-01.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. Eliazar VALENZUELA-ALVARADO, a.k.a. Eliazar Valencia-Alvardo, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 04-16448.
    D.C. No. CV-03-00797-ROS.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 7, 2005.
    
    Decided Feb. 10, 2005.
    Lisa Jennis Settel, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff— Appellee.
    Eliazar Valenzuela-Alvarado, Federal Correctional Institution, Taft, CA, pro se.
    Before FERNANDEZ, GRABER and GOULD, 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 Eliazar Valenzuela-Alvarado appeals pro se the district court’s

** 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. denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate or set aside his sentence for reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, we review de novo, United States v. Chacona-Palomares, 208 F.3d 1157, 1158 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm.

Valenzuela-Alvarado contends that his trial attorney rendered ineffective assistance by not advising him of the strength of the government’s case. For Valenzuela-Alvarado to succeed, he must demonstrate that his attorney’s representation was deficient to such a degree as to prejudice his defense. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

Valenzuela-Alvarado has not demonstrated that his attorney’s performance was deficient, nor can he show a reasonable probability that, had his attorney informed him of the strength of the government’s case, it would have changed the result of the proceedings. Therefore, the district court properly denied his petition. See id. at 691-92, 104 S.Ct. 2052; see also Franklin v. Johnson, 290 F.3d 1223, 1237 (9th Cir.2002).

AFFIRMED.