* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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. 97-20498 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus
OSCAR FUENTES, a/k/a Camarron,
Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-96-CV-4381

- - - - - - - - - - May 11, 1998 Before DUHE’ DeMOSS and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Oscar Fuentes, federal inmate #24793-013, appeals from the denial of his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 3582. He also moves for a certificate of appealability (COA) in order to appeal the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Fuentes fails to challenge the district court’s rationale for denying the § 3582 motion. Thus, any issue as to theNo. 97-20498 -2-

** According liberal construction to Fuentes’ brief, weconstrue his brief as raising the following ineffectiveassistance claims against trial counsel: failure to read discovery materials which contained lies against Fuentes; failure to move before trial to exclude perjured evidence; failure to object on unspecified grounds to the witnesses’ purportedly false testimony; failure to request a materiality instruction, a limiting instruction about perjury, an instruction on the elements of conspiracy, and a multiple-conspiracies instruction; failure to investigate properly Fuentes’ case and to move pretrial for the suppression, on unspecified grounds, of government evidence; failure to move for the exclusion of unspecified other-acts evidence; failure to object to the Government’s purported coaching of the perjured testimony; failure to impeach the lying witnesses on cross-examination; failure to advise Fuentes of relevant law on conspiracy; failure to raise an alibi defense and to request pertinent instructions related to such a defense; failure to raise the defense of entrapment; failure to object to the court’s Allen charge; failure to discover and present the purported misidentification of Fuentes as the person identified as “Oscar Fuentes”; failure to challenge the instruction given pursuant to Pinkerton v. United States , 328 U.S. 640 (1946); and failure to move for a new trial premised upon the purportedly perjured testimony and upon an alibi defense. propriety of the court’s ruling is deemed abandoned on appeal.
See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). The appeal from the denial of the § 3582 motion is frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Fuentes raises the following issues in seeking a COA: 1) the amendment clarifying U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 has retroactive effect; 2) trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in light of the lies and fabrications of two key government witnesses, which Fuentes views as the basis for his conviction; ** 3) counsel rendered ineffective assistance at sentencing; 4) appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance; 5) habeas counsel rendered ineffective assistance; 6) the Government knowingly usedNo. 97-20498 -3- perjured testimony; and 7) the Government failed to disclose favorable evidence. Fuentes fails to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See 2253(c)(2). IT IS ORDERED that COA is DENIED.
APPEAL DISMISSED. COA DENIED.