Opinion
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Appellant's request for oral argument is denied.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding.
Before HUG, O'SCANNLAIN and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Jessica Maritza Perez appeals the district court's denial of her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging her guilty-plea conviction to making a place available to manufacture methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Reviewing de novo, United States v. Christakis, 238 F.3d 1164, 1168 (9th Cir.2001), we affirm.
Perez contends that she received ineffective assistance of counsel because her attorney failed to advise her of the deportation consequences of her plea. Because deportation consequences are a collateral consequence of pleading guilty, United States v. Amador-Leal, 276 F.3d 511, 517 (9th Cir.) cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1070, 122 S.Ct. 1946, 152 L.Ed.2d 849 (2002), and counsel's failure to advise on a collateral penalty does not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness, see Torrey v. Estelle, 842 F.2d 234, 237 (9th Cir.1988) (applying Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) to habeas proceeding involving collateral consequences of plea), we conclude that the district court properly denied her motion.
AFFIRMED.