* Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 95-50909

(Summary Calendar)

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MARIANO NELIS RIASCOS,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(USDC No. W-95-CA-195)

- - - - - - - - - -

September 13, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Mariano Nelis Riascos appeals the denial of his motion for

relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Riascos contends that he was

sentenced on materially inaccurate information; that

misapplications of the sentencing guidelines are cognizable in

§ 2255 proceedings; that trial counsel was ineffective; that

appellate counsel was ineffective; and that the district court

erred by denying his motion without an evidentiary hearing.
2

Riascos does not brief his inaccurate-information contention

beyond listing it and attempting to incorporate the argument in his

district-court motion. Riascos has failed to brief his contention.

Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Riascos’s

contention that guideline-application issues are cognizable in

§ 2255 proceedings is without merit. United States v. Vaughn, 955

F.2d 367, 368 (5th Cir. 1992).

Whether counsel failed to investigate Riascos’s case; failed

to explain relevant conduct or the effect of guidelines; or failed

to explain the plea agreement are factual issues. Riascos raises

those issues for the first time on appeal. He cannot demonstrate

plain error regarding those issues. Robertson v. Plano City of

Texas, 70 F.3d 21, 23 (5th Cir. 1995).

We find no error in the district court’s disposition of

Riascos’s contention that counsel was ineffective for promising him

a five-year sentence if he pleaded guilty. Accordingly, we affirm

for essentially the reasons given by the district court. See

United States v. Riascos, No. W-95-CA-159 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 1, 1995).

Riascos lays out his contentions about counsel’s alleged

ineptitude regarding the aggravating role adjustment and the amount

of drugs attributed to Riascos in conclusional fashion.

Conclusional allegations are insufficient to raise a constitutional

issue. United States v. Pineda, 988 F.2d 22, 23 (5th Cir. 1993).

Riascos does not brief his contention that counsel failed to
3

press his acceptance-of-responsibility contention on appeal beyond

merely listing the contention and directing this court to his

§ 2255 motion. Riascos has failed to brief his contention. Yohey,

985 F.2d at 224-25. Riascos’s contention that counsel was

ineffective for failing to contest his supervised release sentence

on appeal is without a factual basis; Riascos was sentenced to five

years’ supervised release, the minimum term provided in the statute

governing his conviction. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A).

Finally, the record in the district court was sufficient for

disposition of Riascos’s § 2255 motion. The district court need

not have held an evidentiary hearing on Riascos’s motion. United

States v. Drummond, 910 F.2d 284, 285 (5th Cir. 1990), cert.

denied, 498 U.S. 1104 (1991).

AFFIRMED. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a).