### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCUIT

No. 10-30964 Summary Calendar

ALVIN MEAD, Petitioner-Appellant

v. BURL CAIN, WARDEN, LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY, Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:03-CV-3058

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Alvin Mead, Louisiana prisoner # 3 1 0 7 79, appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 p e t i tion challenging his conviction for possession of cocaine, for which he is serving a life sentence as an habitual o f f e n der. The district court granted Mead a certificate of appealability on the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel. Mead argues that counsel failed to adequately advise him regarding whether to accept the plea offer. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D August 22, 20 11 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court hasd ete rm inedthat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 10-30964 Document: 00511578990 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/22/2011No. 10-30964

Whether Mead received ineffective assista nce of counsel is reviewed de

novo. Cf. Medillin v. Dretke , 544 U.S. 660, 680 (2005). We review the dis t ri ct court’s findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo. Charles

v. Thale r , 629 F.3d 494, 498 (2011). To establish ineffective assistance, Mead must show (1) that counsel’s performance was deficient and (2) that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense

. Se e Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). “Prejudice in the state sentencing context turns on whether, absent counsel’s errors, there is a reasonable probability that the defe n dant’s sentence would have b e en significantly less harsh.” Charles , 629 F.3d at 499 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Mead argues that he was deprived of constitutionally adequate representation when, after the State agreed to impose the sentence the defense sought, counsel allowed him to reject the plea offer without adequately advising him of its advantages and disadvantages. Significantly, Mead doe s n o t a l l ege that he was unaware that he was facing a life sentence as an habitual offender. See United States v. Herrera , 412 F.3d 577, 580 (5th Cir. 2005). The state record and allegations made for the first time in Mead’s appellate brief indicate that the terms o f th e plea offer were communicated to Mead; however, Mead, who has consistently maintained his innocence, exercised hi s ri ght t o a trial by jury. Mead’s assertions that he wa s prejudiced by counsel’s failure to give him unspecified advice and that it is reasonable likely that he would have accepted the plea offer had he received such advice are purely conclusional. As such, his allegations of prejudice are insufficient to support a basis for habeas relief. See Green v. Johnson , 160 F.3d 1029, 1040 (5th Cir. 1998). Consequently, Mead was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. Fc. United States v. Edwards , 442 F.3d 258, 264 (5th Cir. 2006). AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 10-30964 Document: 00511578990 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/22/2011