[DO NOT PUBLISH]

                        IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                               FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
                                ________________________                      FILED
                                                                     U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                                       No. 10-10694                    ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
                                   Non-Argument Calendar                DECEMBER 29, 2010
                                 ________________________                   JOHN LEY
                                                                             CLERK
                            D.C. Docket Nos. 0:09-cv-61871-WPD,
                                   0:06-cr-60186-WPD-3


YVONNE MAY RICHARDS,

lllllllllllllllllllll                                                 Petitioner - Appellant,

                                            versus


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                     lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent - Appellee.

                                ________________________

                          Appeal from the United States District Court
                              for the Southern District of Florida
                                ________________________

                                     (December 29, 2010)

Before BLACK, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
      Yvonne May Richards appeals pro se the denial of her motion to vacate.

28 U.S.C. § 2255. Richards argues that her appellate attorney was ineffective for

failing to file a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court and she is

entitled to relief from her conviction for conspiracy to launder money, 18 U.S.C. §

1956(h), based on the decision of the Supreme Court in United States v. Santos,

, 

(2008). We affirm.

      Both of Richards’s arguments are foreclosed by caselaw. Richards’s

appellate attorney cannot be deemed to have acted ineffectively for failing to file a

petition for a writ of certiorari, Wainwright v. Torna, 

, 587–88, 

, 1301 (1982), because there is no right under the Sixth Amendment to

counsel to pursue a discretionary application for review in the Supreme Court,

Ross v. Moffitt, 

, 616–18, 

, 2447 (1974). The decision

of the Supreme Court in Santos that “the gross receipts of an unlicensed gambling

operation were not ‘proceeds’ under section 1956,” United States v. Demarest, 

, 1242 (11th Cir. 2009), does not invalidate Richards’s conviction for

laundering money acquired from health care fraud. See United States v. Jennings,

, 1252 (11th Cir. 2010); 

. The district

court did not err by denying Richards’s motion to vacate.

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2