* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 95-10764

Summary Calendar

_____________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

JAMES RUTH GOFF, a/k/a CORNBREAD,

Defendant-Appellant.

______________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(3:94-CV-008-D)

______________________________________________________

May 30, 1996

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

James Ruth Goff appeals the district court’s denial of his

28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. We affirm.

Goff challenges the sufficiency of his conviction under 18

U.S.C. § 1852, argues that the district court erred in admitting

photographs depicting Goff and a co-conspirator standing with

their hands bound next to a plane filled with marijuana, and

asserts that his counsel’s failure to raise these issues on

direct appeal constituted ineffective assistance. 

The magistrate found that the evidence supported Goff’s
2

conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1952, that the trial court’s

decision to admit the photographs was supported by the record and

that Goff’s counsel rendered effective assistance. The district

court made an independent review of the record and then adopted

the magistrate’s recommendation in full.

Goff’s conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1852 should be upheld if

“any rational trier of fact could have found the essential

elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Jackson v.

Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). The elements of § 1952 are 

(1) travel in interstate or foreign commerce, (2)

specific intent to promote, manage, establish, carry on

. . . unlawful activity and (3) knowing and willful

commission of an act in furtherance of that intent

after the act of travel.

United States v. Abadie, 879 F.2d 1260, 1266 (5th Cir. 1989). A

rational jury could have found, based on uncontradicted testimony

in the record, that Goff went to Missouri in order to remove a

bug from the airplane. The jury could have found that these

actions were taken in order to promote and facilitate the

unlawful activity of marijuana smuggling and that Goff used the

airplane to smuggle marijuana after the trip to Missouri.

The trial court’s decision to admit photographs of Goff next

to a co-conspirator and a plane full of marijuana was supported

by the record and the court’s detailed statement of its reasons

for admitting the evidence. The evidence was admitted to show

that Goff was involved in marijuana smuggling and to counter

challenges made by Goff to government evidence. It countered

assertions by Goff that the type of airplane involved could not
3

fly to South America and return with a load of marijuana, that he

had a discrete role in the conspiracy and was not a full

participant, and that the plane could not use fuel bladders to

store agricultural spray. The photos were also used to

contradict other defendants’ evidence concerning navigational

equipment in the plane and to show that certain other defendants

were involved in the conspiracy. We agree with the magistrate

and the district court that the trial court properly admitted the

challenged photographs.

In order to prevail on his ineffective assistance of counsel

claims, Goff must show that his counsel was both deficient and

that the deficiency was prejudicial to him. See Strickland v.

Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). The admission of the

photographs was not error and the record supports Goff’s

conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1952 so Goff cannot show prejudice

from his counsel’s failure (or choice not) to raise these issues

on direct appeal. Goff has failed to show that his counsel was

deficient or that, but for the deficiency, there is a reasonable

probability that the outcome of the case would have been

different. Id at 694.

For these reasons the district court’s denial of Goff’s

§2255 petition is AFFIRMED.

AFFIRMED.