Monzon-Valenzuela

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioner Jorge Monzon-Valenzuela appeals the district court’s denial of his § 2255 motion. On de novo review, we affirm.

A jury convicted Petitioner of conspiracy to sell methamphetamine, possession with *854 intent to distribute methamphetamine, and possession of a firearm during drug trafficking. At trial, two witnesses provided most of the evidence against Petitioner. As to one of those witnesses, the trial court gave an informant instruction. As to the other, Joel Rodriguez, the trial court did not. Petitioner contends that his counsel was ineffective for having failed to request an informant instruction naming Rodriguez as an informant.

Applying the analysis in United States v. Bosch, 914 F.2d 1239 (9th Cir.1990), we conclude that Petitioner has shown no prejudice, even assuming that counsel’s performance was deficient. First, Rodriguez’ testimony was corroborated; for example, his testimony about the quantity and price of the methamphetamine involved was corroborated by two other witnesses. Second, Petitioner’s lawyer vigorously attacked Rodriguez’ credibility, both on cross-examination and in closing argument. Third, the other instructions adequately…