Angulo-Hernandez

MEMORANDUM **

Jose A. Angulo-Hernandez appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his sentence and convictions by guilty plea to various drug-related offenses. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

Angulo-Hernandez contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue a direct appeal. We review the district court’s denial of a section 2255 motion de novo and its factual findings for clear error. United States v. Navarro, 160 F.3d 1254, 1255 (9th Cir.1998), cert. denied, 527 U.S. 1011 , 119 S.Ct. 2354 , 144 L.Ed.2d 249 (1999).

*653 In Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 120 S.Ct. 1029 , 145 L.Ed.2d 985 (2000), the United States Supreme Court expressly set forth the factors to be considered in determining whether counsel was ineffective for failing to file a notice of appeal on the defendant’s behalf. See id. at 478-81 (concluding that the district court must determine whether counsel failed to follow the defendant’s express instructions concerning an appeal; whether counsel consulted or reasonably chose not to consult with the defendant regarding an appeal; and whether there is a reasonable…