NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 31 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 18-16724 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:08-cr-00227-RCJ-LRL-1 v. ROCIO AURORA RYAN, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Robert Clive Jones, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted November 15, 2019 San Francisco, California Before: WARDLAW, W. FLETCHER, and LINN,** Circuit Judges. Rocio Ryan appeals from the denial of a Writ of Error Coram Nobis by the District of Nevada. We affirm the denial of the writ because Ms. Ryan has not shown that she was prejudiced by the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. Ms. Ryan bases her assertion of ineffective assistance of counsel on Mr. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Richard Linn, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation. Brown’s alleged failure to inform her of the immigration consequences of a guilty plea and his alleged affirmative misrepresentation that there would be no such consequences. Ms. Ryan argues that she was prejudiced because, had she known, she would have rejected the plea and taken her case to trial. Ms. Ryan also argues that Mr. Brown failed to challenge the manner in which her confession was obtained, and thus failed to secure concessions from the prosecution. To prevail, Ms. Ryan must show that: (1) Mr. Brown’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness; and (2) this deficiency prejudiced her. See United States v. Kwan, 407 F.3d 1005, 1014 (9th Cir. 2005) (discussing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)), abrogated on other grounds by Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 370 (2010). Under the standard Strickland analysis, the “defendant must show 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. Prior to Mr. Brown’s appointment as Ms. Ryan’s attorney in July of 2008, Ms. Ryan had already admitted her involvement in the charged conduct to the FBI. As the district court noted, “Ms. Ryan made her confession before she was represented by Mr. Brown, and thus her incriminating statements to authorities were in no way influenced by any advice or misadvice from her attorney.” United States v. Ryan, No. 2:08-00227, 2018 WL 3866402 at *4 (D. Nev. August 14, 2018) (“District Court 2 Op.”). Ms. Ryan does not argue that her statements to the FBI were anything but dispositive. Rather, Ms. Ryan asserts that Mr. Brown should have attacked the manner in which the confession was obtained and sought concessions to avoid immigration consequences. The only basis on which she challenges the confession is that the FBI told her she was not the “target” of the investigation and that she wouldn’t experience problems with immigration. Ms. Ryan does not challenge the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals