UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

No. 95-6283

VERNON A. COLLINS, a/k/a Bey

Brother,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.

John R. Hargrove, Senior District Judge.

(CR-87-338-HAR, CA-92-2442-HAR)

Submitted: December 14, 1995

Decided: January 9, 1996

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS,

Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Vernon A. Collins, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Charles Kay, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for

Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from a district court order denying his 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (1988) motion. We affirm.

Appellant's § 2255 motion raised five claims, three of which were

waived for his failure to bring them on direct appeal when Appellant

failed to show cause and prejudice for the failure. Cf. United States

v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152 (1982). Thus, the district court properly

denied the waived claims.

Appellant's claim that his counsel labored under a conflict of interest because an informant testifying against him was also testifying

against his counsel in a separate investigation is meritless. If anything,

such testimony against the attorney by the informant would give

counsel an independent and personal motive to discredit the information in the prosecution against Appellant. The district court properly

denied this claim; it fails on its factual allegations.

Appellant's final claim, that counsel failed timely to move for a

hearing on the basis for a search warrant under Franks v. Delaware,

438 U.S. 154 (1978), is also meritless. First, counsel moved for a

Franks hearing on the day he received information purporting to

establish that one of the informants used in establishing a basis for a

search warrant had lied under pressure from authorities. Thus, counsel

acted in a competent manner. Second, even had counsel erred in not

quickly acting, the record reveals that the search warrant affidavit was

supported by information from five other informants regarding Appellant's drug activity; the warrant would have been supported even if

the "lying" informant's testimony had been excised. Id. at 172. Thus,

a Franks hearing would not have helped Appellant, and any error by

counsel would not have prejudiced him. This claim of ineffective

assistance is baseless. Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 694

(1984).

 2
Appellant also claims on appeal that the district court improperly

failed to give him a chance to respond to the Government's response

to the § 2255 motion. The district court was not required to do so.

Rule 4(b), Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings. Further, the district

court's swift action in denying the motion is no basis for Appellant's

claim that the court was biased and should have recused itself.

Therefore, we affirm the district court order. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 3