
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Caroline M. BELILES, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-10355.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 21, 2012.
    
    Filed Feb. 24, 2012.
    Kurt E. Grunawalt, Special Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Hagatna, GU, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Howard Gustaf Trapp, Howard Trapp Incorporated, Hagatna, GU, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Caroline Beliles appeals her jury-trial conviction for theft of government property, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641, for which she was sentenced to three years of probation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Beliles’s sole contention on appeal is that her trial attorney rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to request a limiting instruction regarding evidence of uncharged acts that was presented at trial. Although ineffective assistance of counsel claims are generally not considered on direct appeal, the record in this case is sufficiently developed to permit consideration of this claim. See United States v. Alferahin, 433 F.3d 1148, 1160 n. 6 (9th Cir.2006).

Beliles’s claim fails for lack of prejudice because there is no reasonable probability that the reading of a limiting instruction would have affected the jury’s verdict given the strength of the government’s evidence against Beliles. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694-96, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     