* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-60108

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DONNELL SHORTER,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC Nos. 3:98-CV-36-1-S

3:95-CR-128-S

-------------------- March 15, 2001

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Donnell Shorter appeals the district court’s denial of his 28

U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Shorter renews only his claims that counsel

was ineffective in failing to investigate and in failing to pursue

his direct appeal; he has waived the other claims certified in the

district court’s certificate of appealability by failing to brief

them. S ee Yohey v. Collins

, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).

Shorter raise s the following arguments for the first time on

appeal: 1) counsel was ineffective in failing to object to theNo. 00-60108

-2-

amount of drugs attribu ted to him for sentencing purposes; 2)

counsel was ineffective because he was unfamiliar with the charge

Shorter faced, rendering the guilty plea involuntary; 3) the

Government failed to prove that his offense involved crack rather

than powder cocaine; 4) the Sentencing Reform Act is

unconstitutional; 5) the trial cour t failed to insure that he

understood the nature of the charges against him; and 6) the

Government br eached the plea agreement. This court will not

consider these newly raised claims. S ee United States v.

Cervantes , 132 F.3d 1106, 1109 (5th Cir. 1998).

Shorter’s claim that counsel failed to investigate the facts

of his case or a possible defense fails because he has not alleged

with specificity what counsel’s investigation would have revealed

and has not established that, but for counsel’s error, he would not

have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. S ee

Armstead v. Scott , 37 F.3d 202, 206, 209 (5th Cir. 1994). To the

extent that Shorter urges that counsel denied him the right to

appeal because he did not file a timely notice of appeal on his

behalf, the claim fails for lack of prejudice because Shorter

received an out-of-time appeal. S ee United States v. Shorter

, No.

97-60204 (5 th Cir. Oct. 15, 1997); s ee also Strickland v.

Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 694, 697 (1984).

To the extent that Shorter urges that he was denied counsel on

appeal, the claim is factually wi thout merit. S horter was

represented at trial by retained counsel, but he did not retain

counsel for appeal, nor did he request the appointment of appellate

counsel or otherwise show that he met the financial requirementsNo. 00-60108

-3-

for such appointment. S ee 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(b); F I FTH C IRCUIT P LAN

UNDER T HE C RIMINAL J USTICE A CT § 2. He abandoned his appeal. S ee

United States v. Shorter

, No. 97-60204 (5th Cir. Oct. 15, 1997).

Shorter has not demonstrated any error in the district court’s

judgment, and that judgment is AFFIRMED.