and use of a weapon. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo the district court’s decision to deny a habeas petition, Wade v. Terhune, 202 F.3d 1190, 1194 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm. Saunders contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, and that his plea was not knowing and voluntary because he did not understand the consequences of his plea. This contention is unavailing. “We have never held that the United States Constitution requires the State to furnish a defendant with information about parole-eligibility in order for the defendant’s plea of guilty to be voluntary ...” See Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 56, 106 S.Ct. 366, 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985); see also Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 755, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970) (<HOLDING>); Van Tran v. Lindsey, 212 F.3d 1143, 1149 (9th
holding that a defendant must have knowledge of the likely consequences of entering the guilty plea in order for a plea to be voluntary and knowing holding that the defendants guilty plea was valid where the district court carefully questioned the defendant about whether he understood the consequences of his guilty plea holding that right to effective assistance of counsel requires that defendant be advised of immigration consequences of plea holding that an attorney is required to advise a defendant of the direct consequences of a plea and will not be found ineffective for failing to advise of collateral consequences of the plea holding that due process requires that defendant be fully aware of direct consequences of guilty plea