Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leonel Ernesto VILLASENOR, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-07-23
Citations: 389 F. App'x 644
Docket Number: No. 08-17669
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leonel Ernesto VILLASENOR, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 389
Pages: 644–644

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leonel Ernesto VILLASENOR, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-17669.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 29, 2010.
Filed July 23, 2010.
Celeste Benita Corlett, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USTU — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Leonel Ernesto Villasenor, Salters, SC, pro se.
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case i§ suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Federal prisoner Leonel Ernesto Vil-lasenor appeals pro se from the district court's judgment denying his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Villasenor contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his counsel failed to advise him of the effect of his career offender status on his potential sentence before he rejected plea offers. The district court did not err by determining that Villasenor was advised of the effect on his sentence. Therefore, Villase-nor's contention fails. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); see also United States v. Leonti, 326 F.3d 1111, 1120-22 (9th Cir.2003).
Villasenor also contends that he received ineffective assistance because his counsel failed to challenge on direct appeal the denial of his motion to suppress certain statements. This contention fails because his counsel was not deficient in failing to challenge the denial of the motion, and Villasenor cannot demonstrate prejudice because this issue did not have a reasonable probability of prevailing on appeal. See United States v. Baker, 256 F.3d 855, 862-63 (9th Cir.2001).
Contrary to Villasenor's contention, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion without an evidentiary hearing. See Shah v. United States, 878 F.2d 1156, 1160 (9th Cir.1989).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.