United States of America v. Armando Garcia Rico

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ARMANDO GARCIA RICO,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 08-55885
D.C. Nos. 2:07-cv-06246-RMT
2:01-cr-00564-RMT
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Robert M. Takasugi, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Armando Garcia Rico appeals from the district court’s
denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion for relief. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
FILED
JAN 05 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-55885 2
Rico contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to appeal the
district court’s sentence following a limited remand under United States v.
Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc). Counsel here did not have a
constitutionally imposed duty to consult with Rico about an appeal and therefore
did not provide ineffective assistance by not filing an appeal. See Roe v.
Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 480 (2000).
Rico’s motion to supplement the record is denied. See Fed. R. App.
P. 10(e); Morrison v. Hall, 261 F.3d 896, 900 n.4 (9th Cir. 2001).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --