* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### JUL 17 1998 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. WILLIAM THOMAS LAWRENCE, Defendant-Appellant. No. 97-5209 (D.C. No. CIV-97-404-C) (N.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before SEYMOUR , Chief Judge, BRORBY , and BRISCOE , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. There fore, the case is ordered submitted without oral argument. William Lawrence, a federal inmate appearing pro se , seeks a certificate of appealability to appeal the district court’s dismis sal of his motion to vacate, set1 Lawrence also claimed (1) a government chemist wh o testified at his trial

falsified lab reports; (2) his counsel was ineffect ive for failing to challenge the government’s videotape evidence; and (3) his counse l was ineffective for failing to investigate government agents’ perjured testimony. Lawrence raised these issues in his motion attacking his sentence and conviction, but he did not raise the issues in his supporting brief filed in district co urt. The district court noted Lawrence had apparently abandoned the issues and ru led even if abandonment did not occur, all of the issues were without merit. B y failing to raise these additional claims in his brief filed in district court, Lawren ce abandoned the issues and we will not consider them on appeal. See O’Connor v. City & County of Denver , 894 F.2d 1210, 1214 (10th Cir. 1990). -2- aside, or correct an illegal sentence pursuant to 2 8 U.S.C. § 2255. Because Lawrence has failed to make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), we d eny his request for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Lawrence was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 984(a)(1). He was sentenced to 262 months’ imprisonment and fi ve years’ supervised release. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal. See United States v. Edwards , 69 F.3d 419 (10th Cir. 1995). In his § 2255, Law rence claimed he received ineffective assistance of counsel by couns el’s (1) failure to challenge several unsigned affidavits seeking a wiretap and u nsigned order authorizing use of the wiretap, and (2) failure to impeach a govern ment witness who testified at trial that he had prepared and signed an affidavit seeking the wiretap. 1 To prevail on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Lawrence must-3-

demonstrate (1) counsel’s performance was constitut ionally deficient, i.e., it fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 688 (1984), and (2) there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, the outcome of the proceedings wo uld have been different. Kimmelman v. Morrison , 477 U.S. 365, 375 (1986); Williamson v. Ward , 110 F.3d 1508, 1514 (10th Cir. 1997). Lawrence’s trial counsel challenged the government’ s use of evidence obtained from the wiretap by filing a motion to sup press, which was denied by the district court. He also challenged the wiretap on direct appeal. Lawrence’s appellate counsel argued the wiretap application an d order were invalid because the district attorney who applied for the wiretap o rder did not have jurisdiction to do so, the wiretap application contained an insuffi cient showing of requisite necessity for interception of communications, and the government failed to minimize the number of telephone conversations moni tored. Lawrence now argues his trial and appellate counsel were ineffec tive for failing to challenge the wiretap on different grounds, namely that the government officials involved in its procurement failed to sign the appropriate document s. The wiretap was examined by this court and determin ed to be lawful in Lawrence’s direct appeal. See Edwards , 69 F.3d at 430. Specifically, we stated the “wiretap order was issued pursuant to the Oklahoma wiretap statute.” Id. at-4-

429. Lawrence’s present challenge regarding whethe r supporting affidavits and the wire tap order itself were signed appears to ar ise out of his reliance on unsigned copies that were provided to him. Since the wiretap application was examined and determined to be valid by this court o n direct appeal, Lawrence’s counsel was not ineffective for failing to challeng e whether the supporting affidavits and order were signed. See Jones v. Stotts , 59 F.3d 143, 147 (10th Cir. 1995) (“We conclude that because none of the issues Mr. Jones raised amounted to error, counsel did not provide ineffective assis tance.”) Moreover, Lawrence has not demonstrated his trial c ounsel was ineffective for failing to impeach a government witness about the unsigned affidavits. He has failed to identify the government witness who s hould have been impeached, when this unnamed individual allegedly committed pe rjury during the trial, and what prejudice was suffered as a result of his atto rney’s failure to question the official about his failure to sign the affidavits. The request for a certificate of appealability is D ENIED and this appeal is DISMISSED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. Entered for the Court Mary Beck Briscoe Circuit Judge