Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Armando Garcia RICO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-01-05
Citations: 407 F. App'x 255
Docket Number: No. 08-55885
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Armando Garcia RICO, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 407
Pages: 255–255

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Armando Garcia RICO, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 08-55885.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 14, 2010.
Filed Jan. 5, 2011.
Sherilyn Peace Garnett, Esquire, Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Armando Garcia Rico, Taft, CA, pro se.
Gary Paul Burcham, Burcham & Zugman, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, 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 Armando Garcia Rico appeals from the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion for relief. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2258, and we affirm.
Rico contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to appeal the district court's sentence following a limited remand under United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). Counsel here did not have a constitutionally imposed duty to consult with Rico about an appeal and therefore did not provide ineffective assistance by not filing an appeal. See Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 480, 120 S.Ct. 1029, 145 L.Ed.2d 985 (2000).
Rico's motion to supplement the record is denied. See Fed. R.App. P. 10(e); Morrison v. Hall, 261 F.3d 896, 900 n. 4 (9th Cir.2001).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.