United States v. Jose Luis Alvarado

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Jose Luis Alvarado

426 F. App'x 527

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 11, 2011

Docket10-16337

StatusUnpublished

This text of 426 F. App'x 527 (United States v. Jose Luis Alvarado) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Jose Luis Alvarado, 426 F. App'x 527 (9th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Federal prisoner Jose Luis Medina Alvarado appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 habeas motion. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Alvarado contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing accurately to advise him of his potential sentence if he was to plead guilty. As the district court noted, no plea offer was extended to Alvarado, and the sentence he received was close to, if not identical to, the Guidelines sentence that would have resulted from a plea. Accordingly, Alvarado cannot demonstrate prejudice because he has failed to show that there was a reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different. See Strickland, v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 693-94, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); see also United States v. Blaylock, 20 F.3d 1458, 1466-67 (9th Cir.1994). The district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that an evidentiary hearing was not necessary to resolve this claim. See Frazer v. United States, 18 F.3d 778, 781 (9th Cir.1994).

We construe Alvarado’s additional arguments as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1 (e); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Federal prisoner Jose Luis Medina Alvarado appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 habeas motion. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Alvarado contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing accurately to advise him of his potential sentence if he was to plead guilty. As the district court noted, no plea offer was extended to Alvarado, and the sentence he received was close to, if not identical to, the Guidelines sentence that would have resulted from a plea. Accordingly, Alvarado cannot demonstrate prejudice because he has failed to show that there was a reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different. See Strickland, v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 693-94, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); see also United States v. Blaylock, 20 F.3d 1458, 1466-67 (9th Cir.1994). The district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that an evidentiary hearing was not necessary to resolve this claim. See Frazer v. United States, 18 F.3d 778, 781 (9th Cir.1994).

We construe Alvarado’s additional arguments as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1 (e); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

426 F. App'x 527, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-jose-luis-alvarado-ca9-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack