Case Name: Francisco ANDRES-FRANCISCO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-08-01
Citations: 535 F. App'x 599
Docket Number: No. 10-55620
Parties: Francisco ANDRES-FRANCISCO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 535
Pages: 599–600

Head Matter:
Francisco ANDRES-FRANCISCO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 10-55620.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 24, 2013.
Filed Aug. 1, 2013.
Francisco Andres-Francisco, Taft, CA, pro se.
Jeff P. Mitchell, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of The U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Federal prisoner Francisco Andres-Francisco appeals from the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Andres-Francisco contends counsel's failure to file a notice of appeal constituted constitutionally deficient performance. We review a district court's denial of a section 2255 motion de novo. See United States v. Manzo, 675 F.3d 1204, 1209 (9th Cir.2012). The district court properly denied the motion because Andres-Francisco has not shown that there is a reasonable probability that he would have appealed had his trial attorney consulted with him explicitly about the merits of appealing his criminal history calculation. See Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 484-86, 120 S.Ct. 1029, 145 L.Ed.2d 985 (2000).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.