Jones

MEMORANDUM **

Royal G. Jones, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, challenging his conviction and sentence for possession of an unregistered sawed-off shotgun, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861 (d). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review de novo, Sanchez v. United States, 50 F.3d 1448, 1451-52 (9th Cir.1995), and affirm.

Jones contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel on two grounds. First, counsel failed to object to the jury instruction that omitted mens rea as a necessary element of 26 U.S.C. § 5861 (d). We previously ruled in Jones’ direct appeal that although mens rea should have been included in the instruction, evidence of Jones’ guilt was so strong that no reasonable trier of fact could have thought Jones lacked the requisite mens rea. United States v. Jones, No. 97-30151, 1999 WL 373165 , at *3, 182 F.3d 928 (9th Cir. May 19,1999) (unpublished memorandum). Because the jury instruction error was harmless, see United States v. Gracidas-Ulibarry, 231 F.3d 1188, 1197 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc), his attorney’s failure to object to it was not prejudicial. See United States v. Baldwin, 987 F.2d…