Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59, 106 S.Ct. 366, 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985). In his petition, LaVoll raises five grounds for finding ineffective assistance of counsel, all of which were rejected by the Nevada Supreme Court and the district court. We reject each ground as well and will discuss each in turn. First, LaVoll contends that his trial counsel coerced him into pleading guilty by advising him that because he was a black man and the alleged victims were white, he would be convicted. The Nevada Supreme Court did not specifically address this allegation in its opinion, but the court, relying on the written plea agreement and plea canvass, concluded that LaVoll was not coerced into entering the plea. See Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 74, 97 S.Ct. 1621, 52 L.Ed.2d 136 (1977) (<HOLDING>). The plea agreement specifically provides: “I
holding that representations made by the defendant during a plea hearing carry a strong presumption of verity holding that a defendant is bound by representations made during a guilty plea absent a valid reason for controverting those statements recognizing a presumption that a plea of guilty is final and binding if the plea was made during a properly conducted hearing pursuant to rule 11 of the federal rules of criminal procedure holding no evidentiary hearing was required where the affidavits of the defendant and his wife were directly contradicted by the defendants sworn testimony during the plea hearing holding that absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary a defendant is bound by his representations made during a plea colloquy