Case: 11-14812 Date Filed: 07/19/2012 Page: 1 of 2

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 11-14812

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket Nos. 1:10-cv-21899-ASG ; 1:07cr-20224-ASG-1 MIGUEL BEATO,

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner-Appellant,

versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllRespondent-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(July 19, 2012) Before MARCUS, MARTIN and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

Miguel Beato appeals the denial of his motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C.

Case: 11-14812 Date Filed: 07/19/2012 Page: 2 of 2 § 2255. The sole question before us is whether, under the principles of Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 109 S. Ct. 1060 (1989), the Supreme Court’s decision in Padilla v. Kentucky, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010), is retroactively applicable on collateral review, such that Beato’s motion to vacate is timely under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3). According to Beato, the Supreme Court in Padilla established a new and “watershed” rule of criminal procedure. Teague, 489 U.S. at 311, 109 S. Ct. at 1076. Our recent decision in Figuereo-Sanchez v. United States, No. 10-14235, ___ F.3d ___, 2012 WL 1499871 (11th Cir. May 1, 2012), forecloses this argument. See id. at *3–6. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court.

AFFIRMED.

2