USA v. Armando Rico, No. 08-55885 (9th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED JAN 05 2011 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 08-55885 D.C. Nos. 2:07-cv-06246-RMT 2:01-cr-00564-RMT v. ARMANDO GARCIA RICO, MEMORANDUM * Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Robert M. Takasugi, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 14, 2010 ** Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges. Federal prisoner Armando Garcia Rico appeals from the district court s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion for relief. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm. * 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). Rico contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to appeal the district court s sentence following a limited remand under United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc). Counsel here did not have a constitutionally imposed duty to consult with Rico about an appeal and therefore did not provide ineffective assistance by not filing an appeal. See Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 480 (2000). Rico s motion to supplement the record is denied. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(e); Morrison v. Hall, 261 F.3d 896, 900 n.4 (9th Cir. 2001). AFFIRMED. 2 08-55885

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.