IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-50908
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JON HAROLD ROYAL,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
(W-96-CV-221)
June 16, 1998
Before JOHNSON, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jon Harold Royal, federal prisoner #26464079, appeals the
district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. In the
motion, Royal contends he received ineffective assistance of
counsel because his attorney (1)did not timely inform him of the
Government’s plea agreement offer and stated that he would not
represent Royal if Royal cooperated with the Government and (2)
because his attorney failed to object to the admission of, and
*
Pursuant to 5th CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th CIR. R. 47.5.4.
request limiting instructions for, evidence of Royal’s loansharking
and prior drug activities.
In reviewing the decisions made by the district court on a 28
U.S.C. § 2255 motion, we review findings of fact for clear error
and questions of law de novo. United States v. Faubion, 19 F.3d
226, 228 (5th Cir. 1994). Ineffective assistance of counsel claims
raise mixed questions of law and fact and are reviewed de novo.
Id.
A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel requires a
petitioner to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that
his or her attorney’s performance was deficient and that the
deficient performance prejudiced his or her defense and led to a
trial whose result is unreliable. Strickland v. Washington, 466
U.S. 668, 687-91 (1984); Jernigan v. Collins, 980 F.2d 292, 296
(5th Cir. 1992). After a careful review of the arguments and
controlling authorities, we hold that Royal has failed to carry his
burden of proving that he would have been able to satisfy the
condition of the plea offer made by the Government. Therefore,
Royal has not established that his attorney’s performance
prejudiced his defense.
The material that Royal contends that his attorney should have
objected to was admissible. Royal’s attorney was not ineffective
for failing to object to such evidence. See Koch v. Puckett, 907
F.2d 524, 527 (5th Cir. 1990). The district court instructed the
jury that the evidence of Royal’s other criminal activities could
2
not be considered proof that he committed the crime for which he
was on trial. Therefore Royal’s contention that his attorney
should have objected to the trial court’s failure to give a
limiting instruction is without merit. See Koch, 907 F.2d at 527.
AFFIRMED.
3