Lloyd George Sinclair, a.k.a. Paul Grant, a.k.a. Humphrey v. United States of America

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LLOYD GEORGE SINCLAIR, a.k.a. Paul
Grant, a.k.a. Humphrey,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 11-16365
D.C. Nos. 2:09-cv-02034-JAT
2:01-cr-00486-JAT
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 10, 2012**
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Lloyd George Sinclair appeals pro se from the district
court’s orders denying his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
FILED
SEP 21 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-16365 2
Sinclair contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because
his counsel failed to object, move for a mistrial, or appeal, on Confrontation Clause
grounds to the admission of out-of-court statements by a co-conspirator. The
district court did not clearly err in determining that Sinclair’s counsel had raised
the issue. Sinclair has not shown that his attorneys’ performance was deficient or
that, but for counsel’s alleged errors, the result of his proceedings would have been
different. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); United States
v. Allen, 425 F.3d 1231, 1235 (9th Cir. 2005) (admission of a co-conspirator’s
statements does not violate the Confrontation Clause).
Sinclair also contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel
because his counsel either failed to advise him or misadvised him of his right to
testify at trial. Sinclair has not shown that it is reasonably probable that there
would have been a more favorable result in the absence of counsel’s alleged
failings. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687. Moreover, Sinclair’s conclusory
statements do not entitle him to an evidentiary hearing. See United States v.
Johnson, 988 F.2d 941, 945 (9th Cir. 1993).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --