U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2013

United States v. Francisco Andres-Francisco

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided August 1, 2013 · Alarcón, Clifton, Callahan

535 F. App'x 599

Counsel

Francisco Andres-Francisco, Taft, CA, pro se., Jeff P. Mitchell, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of The U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

Andres-Francisco v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 2014)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

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.

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

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.