States v. Sekhar, 683 F.3d 436, 440-41 (2d Cir.2012). Petitioner’s allegation that counsel failed to use the absence of mens rea as a defense does not prove ineffective assistance of counsel. 5. Misinterpretation of Laws Feldman further contends counsel was ineffective because he misunderstood the doctrines of specialty and dual criminality, which impacted the outcome of the case. The doctrine of specialty is a principal of international law requiring that a defendant be tried only for those crimes for which he is extradited. United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56, 115 (2d Cir.2003). This doctrine limits a court’s personal jurisdiction over a defendant, and is thus forfeited if not timely raised. Id. (citing Ford v. United States, 273 U.S. 593, 606, 47 S.Ct. 531, 535, 71 L.Ed. 793 (1927) (<HOLDING>)). The doctrine of dual criminality requires
holding that appellant forfeited his complaint regarding his sentence because he did not object at trial holding that defendants objection to personal jurisdiction was forfeited where defendant did not object before he entered his plea holding that a defendant must show reasonable probability that but for the error he would not have entered the plea holding that appellant forfeited his complaint regarding his postadjudication sentence because he did not object at trial or present his motion for new trial holding that defendant did not preserve his challenge to alleged prosecutorial misconduct where he did not timely object