Rojas-Millan
United States v. Rojas-Millan
Opinion
Lead Opinion
*136 MEMORANDUM **
Federal prisoner Maurillo Rojas-Millan appeals the judgment of the district court denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, alter, or set aside his sentence. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.
Rojas-Millan contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to inform him of a plea offer by the government. Even assuming that this allegation is true, RojasMillan has failed to. show “that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Strickland, v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). The district court therefore properly denied this claim.
Rojas-Millan further contends that the district court erred in failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing. Because the files and records conclusively show that Rojas-Millan is not entitled to relief, the district court acted within its discretion in denying his § 2255 motion without an evidentiary hearing. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ; see also United States v. Blaylock, 20 F.3d 1458, 1465 (9th Cir.1994) (In deciding whether petitioner…