(caption unavailable)

* District Judge of the Northern District of California, sitting
by designation.
** Pursuant to Local Rule 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 Local Rule 47.5.4.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 94-40880
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
VERSUS
DEBORAH RICHARDSON BOUNDS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Western District of Louisiana
(M-91-CV-2233(88-CR-50038-1)
January 18, 1996
Before HIGGINBOTHAM and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges, and SCHWARZER,*
District Judge.
PER CURIAM.**
Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to manufacture phenyl
acetone and amphetamine. After an unsuccessful appeal, she moved
to vacate her sentence and conviction under 28 U.S.C. §2255 for
violations of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
and for ineffective assistance of counsel. To maintain a claim of

-- 1 of 3 --

1 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).
2
Rule 11 error raised by a § 2255 motion, the mover must show cause
why the claim could not have been raised on direct appeal and that
if condoned a miscarriage of justice will result. United States v.
Shaid, 937 F.2d 228 (5th Cir. 1991)(en banc). Defendant has not
done so except to the extent she claims she received ineffective
assistance of counsel.
Defendant claims she received ineffective assistance of
counsel because her attorney did not raise the Rule 11 claim on
appeal. A claim that appellate counsel’s performance was
ineffective must pass the Strickland1 test: (1) counsel’s
performance was so deficient as to fall below objectively
reasonable conduct of appellate counsel and (2) prejudice.
Williams v. Collins, 16 F.3d 626, 635 (5th Cir. 1994). Appellate
counsel is not required to raise every non-frivolous ground that
might be pressed on appeal. Ellis v. Lynaugh, 873 F.2d 830, 840
(5th Cir. 1989). Defendant has not satisfied either of the
Strickland requirements and has not shown that the Rule 11
violation could not have been raised on direct appeal. Her § 2255
motion was properly dismissed.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 3 --

3

-- 3 of 3 --