Maria Del Rio Rocio Jiminez v. Eric Holder, Jr.

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 01 2013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