### The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, Chief Judge, United State s 1 

### District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. ___________ No. 95-1954

___________ Ralph Ausba Wynn, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. United States of America, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: December 22, 1995 Filed: December 29, 1995

___________ Before FAGG, LOKEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
Ralph Aus ba Wynn was convicted of bank robbery and sentenced t o fifty -one months imprisonment. He filed this 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion , citin g numerous instances of ineffective assistance of counsel, an d assert ing that the six-month delay between his arrest and indictmen t violated the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C § 3161(b). The district court 1 denied relief, and we affirm.
As a preliminary matter, we note that since the filing of his s ection 2255 motion, Wynn has been released from custody. Nevertheless, his appea l is no t moot because he was in custody when he filed his motion, and hi s conviction could have collateral

### -2-

consequences in the f uture. See Clemmons v. United States , 721 F.2d 235, 237 n.3 (8th Cir. 1983).

As to Wynn's ineffective-assistance claims, first, we see no meri t to hi s contention that counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue a dimin ished capacity defense, as a court-ordered psychiatric examinatio n revealed that Wynn was mentally competent at the time of the offense. See Mathenia v. Delo , 975 F.2d 444, 448 (8th Cir. 1992), cert. denied , 113 S. Ct. 1609 (1993). We reject Wynn's attempt to supplement the record with regard to this claim. See Dakota Indus., Inc. v . Dakota Sportswear, Inc. , 988 F.2d 61, 63 (8th Cir. 1993). Second, Wynn's assertion that counse l performed deficiently in failing to make certain evidentiary objections is likewise without meri t, as there was no basis for making such objections. See Anderson v. Goeke , 44 F.3d 675, 680 (8th Cir. 1995). Third, in light of the strong evidence against Wynn--which included photographs of him fro m the bank's security cameras and identification by two eyewitnesses--counse l
was not ineffective in conceding that Wynn took the money, and arguing tha t he was guilty of only the lesser included offense of bank larceny. Se e Dokes v. Lockhart , 992 F.2d 833, 836 (8th Cir. 1 993), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 437 (1994). Fourth, the mere fact that Wynn's counsel subsequentl y went to work for the United States Attorney's Office does not demonstrate tha t "`an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his . .

. performance.'" Strickland v. Washington , 466 U. S. 668, 692 (1984) (quoted case omitted).
Wynn's cl aim concerning the delay between his arrest and indictment is not cognizable in a section 2255 motion. See Monteer v. Benson , 57 4 F.2d 447, 449 (8th Cir. 1978). Finally, we do not address his claim , raised for the first time on appeal, that he was not tried by a jury of hi s peers. See Fritz v. United States , 995 F.2d 136, 137 (8th Cir. 1993) , cert. denied , 114 S. Ct. 887 (1994). Accordingly, we affirm.

### -3- A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.