* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 5TH CIR.

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 the
No. 97-20498

-2-

** According liberal construction to Fuentes’ brief, we

construe 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 used
No. 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.