Arechiga-Ramirez

MEMORANDUM

Jose Manuel Arechiga-Ramirez appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

Arechiga-Ramirez contends that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him of his right to petition the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. A federal defendant’s right to effective assistance of counsel on appeal is grounded in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. See United States v. Baker, 256 F.3d 855 , 859 n. 2 (9th Cir.2001). The Supreme Court has held that this right does not extend to the filing of a petition for a writ of certiorari. See Ross v. Moffitt, 417 U.S. 600, 617-18 , 94 S.Ct. 2437 , 41 L.Ed.2d 341 (1974); see also Miller v. Keeney, 882 F.2d 1428, 1433 (9th Cir.1989) (recognizing that “the Supreme Court has interpreted the due process clause as not comprehending a right to counsel, and thus not including a right to the effective assistance of counsel, for the filing of cer-tiorari petitions”). Counsel’s failure to advise Arechiga-Ramirez regarding his right to file such a petition therefore did not violate his constitutional rights.…