NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 10 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 21-15886 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. Nos. 2:19-cv-01267-MCE-EFB v. 2:16-cr-00045-MCE-EFB-2 RALEIGH RANA FIGUERAS, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 8, 2022** San Francisco, California Before: HURWITZ and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges, and ERICKSEN,*** District Judge. Appellant Raleigh Figueras appeals from a district court order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, Figueras * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation. challenges a sentence imposed after a guilty plea. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2255, and we affirm. “We review de novo a district court’s decision to deny a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel raises a mixed question of law and fact, which we review de novo.” United States v. Chacon-Palomares, 208 F.3d 1157, 1158 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal citation omitted). To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, Figueras must prove (1) “that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness,” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 (1984), and (2) that any such deficiency was “prejudicial to the defense,” id. at 692. We may consider either Strickland prong, and need not address both if a defendant makes an insufficient showing under one. Id. at 697; see Schumway v. Washington, 145 F.3d 1340, at *2 (9th Cir. 1998). Here, we need address only the prejudice prong. To satisfy the prejudice requirement, Figueras must demonstrate that “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694. Where, as here, ineffective assistance is alleged to have led a defendant to accept a plea deal, a different result means that “but for counsel’s errors, [Figueras] would either have gone to trial or received a better plea bargain.” United States v. Howard, 381 F.3d 873, 882 (9th Cir. 2004); see Lee v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1958, 1965 (2017). 2 Figueras “must convince the court that a decision to reject the plea bargain would have been rational under the circumstances.” Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 372 (2010). Figueras, a legal permanent resident of the United States, pled guilty to possession of stolen U.S. mail in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1708, for which he was sentenced to 12 months in prison. The conviction and resulting sentence of “at least one year,” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G), made him “deportable” pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). Figueras contends that, but …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals