Desiderio-Meza

MEMORANDUM *

Petitioner Manuel Desiderio-Meza appeals the judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition. He alleges that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when, after he was sentenced, his lawyer did not file a notice of appeal. The facts and prior proceedings are known to the parties and are not restated herein except as necessary.

To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim when the attorney has failed to file a notice of appeal, a petitioner must demonstrate that (1) counsel acted unreasonably, and (2) counsel’s conduct prejudiced his case by causing him to forfeit his appeal. See Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 483-84 , 120 S.Ct. 1029 , 145 L.Ed.2d 985 (2000). Neither party disputes the district court’s finding that the attorney’s performance was unreasonable. The issue on appeal is whether counsel’s deficiencies prejudiced Desiderio-Meza’s case.

To show prejudice, there must be a reasonable probability that, “but for counsel’s deficient failure to consult with [the defendant] about an appeal, [the defendant] would have timely appealed.” Id. at 484 , 120 S.Ct. 1029 . The district court found as a fact that Desiderio-Meza was aware of his right…