Opinion ID: 153088
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: issues

Text: 14 On appeal, Harvey contends that the district court erred in dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus because: (1) his conspiracy conviction violated the principles of double jeopardy; (2) his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was violated; (3) the use of his allocution statement violated his Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights; and (4) trial counsel's failure to advise him of the consequences of making an allocution statement at his first sentencing hearing deprived him of his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. 2 15 We review a district court's legal conclusions in dismissing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus de novo. Ballinger v. Kerby, 3 F.3d 1371, 1374 (10th Cir.1993). Legal conclusions and mixed questions of law and fact are reviewed de novo, although findings of fact underlying mixed questions are accorded the presumption of correctness. Manlove v. Tansy, 981 F.2d 473, 476 (10th Cir.1992).