Adame
United States v. Adame
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Federal prisoner Miguel Alvarez-Adame appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. We have jurisdiction over this timely filed appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (a). We review de novo. United States v. Day, 285 F.3d 1167, 1169 (9th Cir.2002). We affirm.
Alvarez-Adame claims his indictment was defective and that his 1976 deportation violated due process. His unconditional guilty plea precludes these arguments. United States v. Kaczynski, 239 F.3d 1108, 1113-14, 1118 (9th Cir.2001). Moreover, a defective indictment does not deprive the district court of jurisdiction. United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625 , 122 S.Ct. 1781, 1785 , 152 L.Ed.2d 860 (2002). Also precluded is his claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel on these pre-plea matters. Reyes-Platero, 224 F.3d at 1115.
Finally, Alvarez-Adame contends that appellate counsel was ineffective. We are not persuaded. Alvarez-Adame fads to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by counsel’s failure to challenge the indictment or argue that Alvarez-Adame’s 1976 deportation was invalid. See Miller v. Keeney, 882 F.2d 1428, 1433-34 (9th Cir. 1989).