Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Paul LEWIS, Jr., aka Seal A, aka James P. Lewis, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-05-17
Citations: 518 F. App'x 562
Docket Number: No. 10-55618
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Paul LEWIS, Jr., aka Seal A, aka James P. Lewis, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON and FISHER, Circuit Judges, and DANIEL, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 518
Pages: 562–563

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Paul LEWIS, Jr., aka Seal A, aka James P. Lewis, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-55618.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted May 8, 2013.
Filed May 17, 2013.
Curtis A. Kin, Esquire, Gregory William Staples, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Karyn H. Bucur, Esquire, Karyn H. Bu-cur Attorney at Law, Laguna Hills, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: PREGERSON and FISHER, Circuit Judges, and DANIEL, District Judge.
The Honorable Wiley Y. Daniel, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Colorado, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
James P. Lewis appeals the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 2253, and we affirm.
Notwithstanding his counsel's sentencing prediction, the plea agreement, the prosecutor, and the district court fully informed Lewis that he could be sentenced to the statutory maximum of 30 years and that the district court retained ultimate discretion in sentencing Lewis to any reasonable sentence within that maximum. Because Lewis was fully apprised of his sentencing exposure, and his responses during the plea colloquy manifested his understanding of such exposure, Lewis' claim that his plea was involuntary due to ineffective assistance of counsel fails. See Womack v. Del Papa, 497 F.3d 998, 1003 (9th Cir.2007).
Because "the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief," the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lewis' motion without an eviden-tiary hearing. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.