Case ID: f-appx_455/html/0742-01.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. Roberto AGUILAR-ESCOBEDO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-16976.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 25, 2011.
    
    Filed Oct. 26, 2011.
    Hemant Hari Kewalramani, Lee, Jor-gensen, Pyle & Kewalramani, PC, Irvine, CA, Richard C. Cheng, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Jose, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Roberto Aguilar-Escobedo, Pekin, IL, pro se.
    
      Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Roberto Aguilar-Escobedo appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2258, and we affirm.

Aguilar-Escobedo contends that his attorney was ineffective for failing to present a sentencing entrapment defense at trial. As the district court concluded, counsel’s representation did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

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