MEMORANDUM **

Federal prisoner Ameen Abdul-Jillil appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 habeas motion. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Abdul-Jillil contends that his reliance on counsel’s misleading advice regarding the *758 potential sentence rendered his guilty pleas invalid. Irrespective of counsel’s advice, Abdul-Jillil was adequately informed, by both the plea agreement and the judge, that he might be sentenced to more than 135 months. Additionally, Abdul-Jillil orally confirmed to the court that he understood the terms and maximum sentence stated in the plea agreement before he entered his guilty pleas. Accordingly, Abdul-Jillil has failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by counsel’s performance. See Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 57-59, 106 S.Ct. 366, 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985) (applying Strickland two-part test to guilty pleas); see also Womack v. Del Papa, 497 F.3d 998, 1003-04 (9th Cir. 2007).

Abdul-Jillil’s motion to file late excerpts of record and for relief from default is granted.

AFFIRMED.