
    Fernando NELSON AYALARAMOS, a.k.a. Jose, a.k.a. Nelson Fernando Ramos-Ayala, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 11-56487.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 22, 2014.
    
    Filed July 29, 2014.
    Fernando Nelson Ayala-Ramos, Pecos, TX, pro se.
    Curtis A. Kin, Esquire, Assistant-U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, 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 Fernando Nelson Ayala-Ramos appeals from the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo the district court’s denial of a section 2255 motion, see United States v. Aguirre-Ganceda, 592 F.3d 1043, 1045 (9th Cir.2010), and we vacate and remand.

Ayala-Ramos contends that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to comply with instructions to file a notice of appeal. The government agrees that this claim is controlled by United States v. Sandoval-Lopez, 409 F.3d 1193, 1197-98 (9th Cir.2005), which holds that when counsel fails to follow a client’s instructions to file a notice of appeal, there is both deficient performance and prejudice. Accordingly, we vacate and remand to the district court for an evidentiary hearing to determine the veracity of Ayala-Ramos’s allegation that counsel did not follow his instructions to file a notice of appeal. See id. at 1198. Alternatively, if the government does not object, the district court may vacate and reenter the judgment in Ayala-Ramos’s criminal proceedings, allowing AyalaRamos to file a timely notice of appeal. See id.

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