Valenzuela-Alvarado
United States v. Valenzuela-Alvarado
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM**
Federal prisoner Eliazar Valenzuela-Alvarado appeals pro se the district court’s
** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. *888 denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate or set aside his sentence for reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , we review de novo, United States v. Chacona-Palomares, 208 F.3d 1157, 1158 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm.
Valenzuela-Alvarado contends that his trial attorney rendered ineffective assistance by not advising him of the strength of the government’s case. For Valenzuela-Alvarado to succeed, he must demonstrate that his attorney’s representation was deficient to such a degree as to prejudice his defense. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).
Valenzuela-Alvarado has not demonstrated that his attorney’s performance was deficient, nor can he show a reasonable probability that, had his attorney informed him of the strength of the government’s case, it would have changed the result of the…