
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ameen ABDUL-JILLIL, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-35367.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2011.
    
    Filed March 24, 2011.
    Stephan Alexander Collins, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Richard L. Pomeroy, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Anchorage, AK, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Meredith Appel Ahearn, Hagans, Ah-earn & Webb, Anchorage, AK, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, 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 Ameen Abdul-Jillil appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 habeas motion. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Abdul-Jillil contends that his reliance on counsel’s misleading advice regarding the potential sentence rendered his guilty pleas invalid. Irrespective of counsel’s advice, Abdul-Jillil was adequately informed, by both the plea agreement and the judge, that he might be sentenced to more than 135 months. Additionally, Abdul-Jillil orally confirmed to the court that he understood the terms and maximum sentence stated in the plea agreement before he entered his guilty pleas. Accordingly, Abdul-Jillil has failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by counsel’s performance. See Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 57-59, 106 S.Ct. 366, 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985) (applying Strickland two-part test to guilty pleas); see also Womack v. Del Papa, 497 F.3d 998, 1003-04 (9th Cir.2007).

Abdul-Jillil’s motion to file late excerpts of record and for relief from default is granted.

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