MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

DAVID A. FABER, Senior District Judge.

Petitioner Monica Renteria-Gonzalez was sentenced on June 25, 2015, and the judgment order was entered July 7, 2015. See Doc. No. 638. Petitioner argued in her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion before this court that there existed attorney misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel concerning the representation of her trial counsel Daniel Johnson. See Doc. No. 677. She alleges that counsel was ineffective in his failure to file a notice of appeal on Petitioner's behalf. See id. Petitioner has raised several claims, the balance of which the court has previously dismissed. See Doc. No. 851.

Petitioner argued that Mr. Johnson had failed to appeal her case in contravention of her wishes that she had expressed to him shortly after her original sentencing hearing. This court held an evidentiary hearing at the federal courthouse in Raleigh, North Carolina, on November 15, 2016, to adjudicate this dispute. The court questioned Petitioner about the waiver of attorney-client privilege and was satisfied that the privilege had been waived for the purposes of this hearing. The court admitted into the record the communications between Petitioner and Mr. Johnson.

The exhibits show that on July 8, 2015, counsel advised Petitioner that she had the right to appeal her sentence within 14 days of the judgment that, as stated earlier, was entered on July 7, 2015. See Doc. No. 868-1; Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). In the same letter, Mr. Johnson specifically stated that the appeal waiver Petitioner signed as part of her plea agreement limits her ability to appeal to claims of "prosecutorial misconduct not known at the time of the sentencing or ineffective assistance of counsel or a sentence in excess of the guidelines." Id. Five days later, on July 13, 2015, Petitioner responded to Mr. Johnson in an email, stating in relevant parts: "I have thought about the appeal but I'd rather stay where I'm at because there may be an increase if it backfires" and "I am at ease with everything knowing you did your best for me." Doc. No. 868-2. The latter statement, in particular, sounds rather like a resounding endorsement from a grateful client to her advocate of the lawyer's services. And the former statement unequivocally is Petitioner's decision not to appeal her case. In fact, counsel would have disobeyed his client's wishes had he chosen to appeal under these circumstances. On September 8, 2015—almost two months later—long after the deadline to appeal had passed, Petitioner wrote another letter to Mr. Johnson. See Doc. No. 868-3. This time Petitioner stated: "I believe deep down in my heart that there's a loop hole somewhere, and I honestly feel that they sentenced me unfairly . . . ." Id. This letter is not quite the command to counsel to go ahead with filing the notice of appeal. It might be construed as simply an exhortation to counsel to excavate and explore all possible reasons to appeal. In any case, the deadline to appeal had passed almost two months earlier. Accordingly, Petitioner's § 2255 motion for relief on the bases considered in this hearing must be rejected. The court has ruled on the matter from the bench, and this opinion memorializes that ruling.

The court hereby DISMISSES Petitioner's 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion in all respects, including her claims of attorney misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel.

The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to counsel of record and to Petitioner.

IT IS SO ORDERED.