
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pedro CRUZ-TERCERO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-56982.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 27, 2011.
    
    Filed Oct. 5, 2011.
    Christopher Paul Tenorio, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Pedro Cruz-Tercero, Adelanto, CA, pro se.
    Before: HAWKINS, SILVERMAN, and W. FLETCHER, 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 Pedro Cruz-Tercero appeals pro se from the district court’s orders denying his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and his motion for reconsideration. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Cruz-Tercero contends that the district court erred by denying his habeas motion and motion to reconsider because he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his trial attorneys failed to advise him adequately to accept the plea agreement offered by the government rather than proceed to trial. The district court did not err in rejecting this claim because Cruz-Tercero has not shown that his attorneys’ performance was deficient or that it is reasonably likely that he would have received a shorter sentence but for his attorneys’ performance. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying an evidentiary hearing based on the record before it. See Turner v. Calderon, 281 F.3d 851, 890 (9th Cir.2002).

To the extent that Cruz-Tercero sought to advance new grounds for relief in his motion to reconsider, the district court properly denied these claims as an improper successive § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h); United States v. Allen, 157 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir.1998).

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