United States v. Caroline Beliles

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 11-10355
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 1:10-cr-00038-JVEM
v.
MEMORANDUM *
CAROLINE M. BELILES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Guam
Frances Tydingco-Gatewood, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 21, 2012 **
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Caroline Beliles appeals her jury-trial conviction for theft of government
property, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641, for which she was sentenced to three
years of probation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Beliles’s sole contention on appeal is that her trial attorney rendered
ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to request a limiting instruction
regarding evidence of uncharged acts that was presented at trial. Although
ineffective assistance of counsel claims are generally not considered on direct
appeal, the record in this case is sufficiently developed to permit consideration of
this claim. See United States v. Alferahin, 433 F.3d 1148, 1160 n.6 (9th Cir. 2006).
Beliles’s claim fails for lack of prejudice because there is no reasonable
probability that the reading of a limiting instruction would have affected the jury’s
verdict given the strength of the government’s evidence against Beliles. See
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694-96 (1984).
AFFIRMED.
2 11-10355