MEMORANDUM **

Federal prisoner Francisco Andres-Francisco appeals from the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Andres-Francisco contends counsel’s failure to file a notice of appeal constituted constitutionally deficient performance. We review a district court’s denial of a section 2255 motion de novo. See United States v. Manzo, 675 F.3d 1204, 1209 (9th Cir. 2012). The district court properly denied the motion because Andres-Francisco has not shown that there is a reasonable probability that he would have appealed had his trial attorney consulted with him explicitly about the merits of appealing his criminal history calculation. See Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 484-86, 120 S.Ct. 1029, 145 L.Ed.2d 985 (2000).

AFFIRMED.