Zepeda-Medrano

MEMORANDUM **

Jorge Augstin Zepeda-Medrano appeals pro se the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence for conspiracy to manufacture, distribute, and possess methamphetamine. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review de novo, see United States v. Chacon-Palomares, 208 F.3d 1157, 1158 (9th Cir. 2000), and affirm.

Zepeda-Medrano first contends that his counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the drug quantity at sentencing. This contention lacks merit, because Zepeda-Medrano personally admitted to the drug quantity at his change of plea hearing. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

Next, Zepeda-Medrano contends that his counsel was ineffective for failing to stay informed about his case, which resulted in a late notice of appeal. The district court properly concluded that counsel was not deficient for believing that she would be served court orders in a timely fashion. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 . Moreover, Zepeda-Medrano cannot show prejudice even if he had succeeded in suppressing the evidence at issue, it would have had no effect,…