The district court denied his motion after holding an evidentiary hearing. We
affirm because Acosta’s petition was not timely.
Appellant did not file it within one year of the date of his conviction. 28
U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1). Nor did Appellant learn of any new facts that he could not
have discovered through the exercise of due diligence; he merely learned of the
legal significance of the alleged facts that existed at the time of his conviction. See
id. § 2255(f)(4); Hasan v. Galaza, 254 F.3d 1150, 1154 n.3 (9th Cir. 2001).
Furthermore, Appellant is not entitled to equitable tolling because he did not
diligently pursue his claim and also because, given his ability to pay for translation
assistance, he cannot show that “extraordinary circumstances” prevented him from
filing his claim. See United States v. Aguirre-Ganceda, 592 F.3d 1043, 1045-46
(9th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 3444 (2010); Mendoza v. Carey, 449 F.3d 1065,
1070 & n.5 (9th Cir. 2006).
Even if we were to reach Acosta’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim,
that claim would fail. Appellant cannot show that “(1) counsel’s representation fell
below the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases, and (2)
there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have
pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.” Washington v. Lampert,
422 F.3d 864, 873 (9th Cir. 2005) (internal quotations omitted); see also Padilla v.