Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roberto AGUILAR-ESCOBEDO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-10-26
Citations: 455 F. App'x 742
Docket Number: No. 10-16976
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roberto AGUILAR-ESCOBEDO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 455
Pages: 742–743

Head Matter:
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).

Opinion:
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.