Maria Del Rio Rocio Jiminez v. Eric Holder, Jr.
Maria Del Rio Rocio JIMINEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General and Laura Duffy, U.S. Attorney, Southern District, San Diego, Respondents-Appellees
- Area
- other
- Panel
- Arthur L. Alarcon (author), Consuelo M. Callahan, Richard R. Clifton
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 01 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIA DEL RIO ROCIO JIMINEZ, No. 11-56605 Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:10-cv-01528-JAH v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General and LAURA DUFFY, U.S. Attorney, Southern District, San Diego, Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California John A. Houston, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 24, 2013 ** Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Maria Del Rio Rocio Jiminez appeals from the district court’s judgment denying her 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 * 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). U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196, 1202 (9th Cir. 2011), and we affirm.
Jiminez challenges her 2009 guilty-plea conviction on the ground that counsel was ineffective by failing to inform her of the possible immigration consequences of her plea, as required under Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010). However, because Jiminez’s conviction became final before the Supreme Court decided Padilla, she cannot rely on that case to establish that counsel performed deficiently. See Chaidez v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1103, 1113 (2013)
(holding that Padilla does not apply retroactively). Moreover, Jiminez cannot demonstrate prejudice because she was informed of the possible immigration consequences by the plea agreement and at the plea colloquy. See Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376, 1384 (2012) (to establish prejudice, “a defendant must show the outcome of the plea process would have been different with competent advice”).
AFFIRMED.
2 11-56605