The Hono rable John F. Nangle, United States District Judge for the Easter n * District of Missouri, sitting by designation. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 95-1277NI

_____________ Robert McNeese, * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Northern v. * District of Iowa. * United States of America, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

_____________ Submitted: March 13, 1997

Filed: June 12, 1997

_____________ Before FAGG and HEANEY, Circuit Judges, and NANGLE, District Judge. *

_____________ PER CURIAM. Robert McN eese appeals the district court’s dismissal of his second 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. We affirm.
In 1988, M cNeese pleaded guilty to bank robbery. See 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a ) (1988). Although McNeese told t he grand jury investigating the robbery that he acted alone, McNeese wrote some letters to the prosecutor shortly before he was sentenced andoffered to inform on two of his robbery partners. After the prosecutor promised-2-

not to charg e McNeese with perjury for lying to the grand jury, McNeese gave a detailedstatement explaining how his partners helped plan and carry out the ban k robbery. Despite McNeese’s belated efforts to impl icate his partners, the district court gra ntedthe prosecutor’s request for an obstruction of justice enhancement t o McNeese’s sentencing range. Instead of appealing his sentence, McNeese filed a § 2255 motion contending he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The distric t court d enied McNeese’s first motion for postconviction relief on the merits in 1991

. About a year later, McNeese filed a second § 2255 motion contending his attorne y pro vided ineffective assistance based on a new theory that his attorney had a conflict of interest. Specifically, McN eese asserts his attorney was paid to give bad advice by one of his unindicted robbery partners.
Because McNeese failed to raise the conflict of interest issue in his first § 2255 proceeding, the district court properly dismissed McNeese’s second § 2255 motion as an abuse of the writ. See Peltier v. Henman , 997 F.2d 461, 472-73 (8t h Cir. 1993). On appeal, McNe ese contends he has shown cause to excuse his abusive motion. Se e McCleskey v. Zant , 4 99 U.S. 467, 493-94 (1991). We disagree. Although McNeese belie ves his presentencing letters alerted the prosecutor to his attorney’s possibl e conflict, McNeese has not pointed to any governmental conduct that prevented hi m from raising the conflict i ssue in his first § 2255 motion. See McCleskey , 499 U.S. at 497-98. As for McNeese’s duress claim, we agre e with the district court’s assessment that there had not been a credible threat to McNeese or his family for several years

. Last, McNeese ’s attempt to establish cause by relying on the fact he filed his first § 2255 motion pro se

is foreclosed by our opinion in Cornman v. Armontrout , 959 F.2d 727, 729 (8th Cir. 1992). In short, we believe McNeese could and should hav e asserted the attorney’s potential conflict in his first § 2255 proceedin g. See Peltier , 997 F.2d at 473. We thus affirm the judgment of the district court.-3-

A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.