United States v. Nelson Osemwengie

MEMORANDUM

Federal prisoner Nelson Osemwengie appeals pro se 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 § 2253. We review de novo a district court’s denial of a section 2255 motion, see United States v. Manzo, 675 F.3d 1204, 1209 (9th Cir.2012), and we affirm.

Osemwengie contends that his counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him adequately during plea negotiations. This contention fails because Osemwengie has not shown a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s conduct, he would have received a shorter sentence. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); see also Missouri v. Frye, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 1399, 1409 , 182 L.Ed.2d 379 (2012) (to establish prejudice where a plea offer has been rejected because of counsel’s deficient performance, defendant must show “a reasonable probability that the end result of the criminal process would have been more favorable by reason of a plea to a lesser charge or a sentence of less prison time”).

Osemwengie also contends that his counsel was ineffective for failing to request credit…