United States of America v. Manuel Navarro

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
sko/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MANUEL NAVARRO,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 05-55209
D.C. Nos. CV-03-01309-DOC
CR-02-00009-DOC
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 11, 2010 **
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Manuel Navarro appeals from the district court’s order
denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253, and we affirm.
FILED
JAN 25 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

sko/Research 05-55209 2
Navarro contends that his trial attorney was ineffective for failing to advise
him of his right to appeal. Because Navarro has not shown that a rational
defendant would want to appeal, or that he reasonably demonstrated to counsel that
he was interested in appealing, he has failed to show that he is entitled to relief.
See Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 480 (2000); see also Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984).
Navarro also contends that the district court erred by failing to hold an
evidentiary hearing on this issue. Based on the record available to the district
court, including trial counsel’s declaration, and the transcripts of the plea colloquy
and the October 7, 2002 hearing, the district court did not abuse its discretion in
resolving Navarro’s claims without holding a hearing. Where, as here, “the motion
and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled
to no relief,” an evidentiary hearing is not required. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b).
We construe Navarro’s additional arguments as a motion to expand the
certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R.
22-1(e); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999) (per
curiam).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --