Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cornelio Mata ESPINOZA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-02-21
Citations: 677 F. App'x 389
Docket Number: No. 15-10472
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cornelio Mata ESPINOZA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 677
Pages: 389–389

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cornelio Mata ESPINOZA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-10472
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted February 14, 2017
Filed February 21, 2017
David Countryman, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Jonas Lerman, Assistant U.S. Attorney, J. Douglas Wilson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-USAO, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Cornelio Mata Espinoza, Pro Se
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, 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
Cornelio Mata Espinoza appeals pro se from the district court's order denying-Espinoza's motion to alter or amend the judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
In his section 2255 motion, Espinoza contended that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by advising him to agree in his plea agreement that he was a career offender for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. The district court denied the motion on the ground that Espinoza's counsel was not ineffective for advising Espinoza to stipulate to being a career offender. Espinoza eventually filed a motion to alter or amend the' district court judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Espinoza's motion because Espinoza failed to present newly discovered evidence or to demonstrate that the district court's conclusion that Espinoza had not suffered ineffective assistance was clearly erroneous, manifestly unjust, or undermined by an intervening change in controlling law. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for relief under Rule 59(e)).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.