Murillo
United States v. Murillo
Opinion
lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Ricardo Murillo, a federal prisoner, appeals the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 . We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history, we will not recount it here.
Murillo claims he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his trial attorneys failed to file a notice of an alibi defense. We review both a district court’s denial of a federal prisoner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition and an ineffective assistance of counsel claim de novo. See United States v. Rodrigues, 347 F.3d 818, 823 (9th Cir. 2003).
The district court properly denied Murillo’s claim. To establish an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Murillo must first demonstrate that his counsel’s performance “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). While “judicial scrutiny of counsel’s performance must be highly deferential,” id. at 689 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , “defense counsel must, ‘at a minimum, conduct a reasonable investigation enabling [them] to make informed decisions about how best to represent [their] client.’ ” Rios v.…