
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VY THI THACH, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-35435.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submission Deferred May 9, 2012.
    Submitted April 5, 2013.
    Filed April 9, 2013.
    Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Michael Symington Morgan, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Nicholas W. Marchi, Carney & Marchi, PS, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: HAWKINS, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Vy Thi Thach appeals the denial of her petition for a writ of error coram nobis. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

Thach’s petition rises or falls on whether Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010), applies retroactively. It is therefore foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Chaidez v. United States, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 1103, 1105, 185 L.Ed.2d 149 (2013), which held that “under the principles set out in Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 109 S.Ct. 1060, 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989), Padilla does not have retroactive effect.”

That the Supreme Court applied Teague in evaluating Chaidez’s challenge to her federal conviction reinforces our authority holding that Teague’s, framework applies to collateral attacks on federal convictions. See United States v. Sanchez-Cervantes, 282 F.3d 664, 667 (9th Cir.2002) (Teague applies to federal prisoners).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     
      
      . The Supreme Court declined to consider Chaidez’s arguments that Teague’s bar on ret-roactivity should not apply when a petitioner challenges a federal conviction, or at least should not apply when there is a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Chaidez, 133 S.Ct. at 1113 n. 16.
     