Dollison

MEMORANDUM **

Aaron Kenneth Dollison appeals his conviction, pursuant to a guilty plea, for the attempt to possess with intent to distribute fifty grams or more of cocaine base.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Dollison’s motion to withdraw his plea. Dollison’s contention that a fair and just reason for withdrawal exists because his attorney erroneously predicted his potential sentence fails because it is well established that “an erroneous prediction by a defense attorney concerning sentencing does not entitle a defendant to challenge his guilty plea.” United States v. Michlin, 34 F.3d 896, 899 (9th Cir.1994) (citation omitted). Moreover, the record is replete with evidence demonstrating that Dollison was fully aware of an accurate prediction of his potential sentence.

Dollison’s argument that a fair and just reason for withdrawal exists because he received ineffective assistance of counsel similarly fails. While we do not ordinarily review such claims on direct appeal, United States v. McKenna, 327 F.3d 830, 845 (9th Cir.2003), because Dollison seeks “to attack the validity of [his] plea[ ] by attempting to demonstrate that counsel was so deficient…