Espinoza-Lopez

MEMORANDUM **

Roman Espinoza-Lopez appeals pro se the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and denying his request for an evidentiary hearing. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 , and we affirm.

Espinoza-Lopez contends that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to investigate why Espinoza-Lopez admitted to owning the methamphetamine found in a search of his bedroom, failing to raise the defense that Espinoza-Lopez lacked control and dominion over those drugs in a pre-trial suppression motion, and advising him to plead guilty and accept a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence.

We review the district court’s denial of a § 2255 motion de novo, see United States v. Ratigan, 351 F.3d 957, 961 (9th Cir.2003), and we conclude that counsel’s performance in all these respects was reasonable. Accordingly, Espinoza-Lopez’ contentions fail. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688-89 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) (noting that a defendant must show that counsel’s conduct fell outside the wide range of reasonable conduct in order to be considered constitutionally deficient). Furthermore, the district court did not…