
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tirso MORALES, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-16656.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 16, 2013.
    
    Filed April 22, 2013.
    Suzanne Miles, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Antonia Maria Stainbrook, Law Offices of Antonia M. Stainbrook, San Rafael, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Tirso Morales appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his petition for a writ of coram nobis. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the denial of a writ of coram nobis de novo, see United States v. Riedl, 496 F.3d 1003, 1005 (9th Cir.2007), and we affirm.

Morales challenges his 1984 guilty-plea conviction on the ground that counsel was ineffective by failing to inform him of the possible immigration consequences of his guilty-plea as required under Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010). The Supreme Court recently held that Padilla does not apply retroactively to individuals whose convictions, like Morales’s, became final before the Supreme Court decided Padilla. See Chaidez v. United States, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 1103, 1113, 185 L.Ed.2d 149 (2013). Therefore, the district court properly denied Morales coram nobis relief because he could not demonstrate that there has been an “error of the most fundamental character.” See Riedl, 496 F.3d at 1005 (internal quotations omitted).

The government’s motion, filed on February 25, 2013, to lift the stay and for summary affirmance is denied as moot.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     