
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Manuel NAVARRO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 05-55209.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 11, 2010.
    Filed Jan. 25, 2010.
    Becky S. Walker, Esq., USLA — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, Lawrence E. Kole, Esq., USSA — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Santa Ana, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Jeff Dominic Price, Esq., Santa Monica, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Manuel Navarro, Pine Knot, KY, pro se.
    Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Federal prisoner Manuel Navarro appeals from the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Navarro contends that his trial attorney was ineffective for failing to advise him of his right to appeal. Because Navarro has not shown that a rational defendant would want to appeal, or that he reasonably demonstrated to counsel that he was interested in appealing, he has failed to show that he is entitled to relief. See Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 480, 120 S.Ct. 1029, 145 L.Ed.2d 985 (2000); see also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

Navarro also contends that the district court erred by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on this issue. Based on the record available to the district court, including trial counsel’s declaration, and the transcripts of the plea colloquy and the October 7, 2002 hearing, the district court did not abuse its discretion in resolving Navarro’s claims without holding a hearing. Where, as here, “the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief,” an evidentiary hearing is not required. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b).

We construe Navarro’s additional arguments as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22 — 1(e); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam).

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