IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-60047

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff−Appellee,

versus

CHRISTOPHER MONTGOMERY, Also Known as Knowledge,

Defendant−Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

No. 1:96-CR-37-5

Before SMITH, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Christopher Montgomery, federal prisoner # 25140-018, pleaded guilty,

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 30, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-60047 Document: 00512820491 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/30/2014
No. 14-60047

in 2003, of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine. He filed a 

notice of appeal from an order denying his motion for production of documents

that he believed would support his then-pending motion for new trial. Because 

Montgomery has not briefed any challenge to that order, he has abandoned any 

appeal from it. See United States v. Scroggins, 599 F.3d 433, 446 (5th Cir. 

2010).

Montgomery’s brief instead addresses the denial of his motion for new 

trial in which he asserted that he has newly discovered evidence that trial 

counsel’s assistance was rendered ineffective by conflicts of interest stemming 

from her disbarment. We liberally construe Montgomery’s notice of appeal 

from the denial of his motion to produce certain documents to include a notice 

of appeal from the denial of the motion for new trial. See Turnbull v. United 

States, 929 F.2d 173, 177 (5th Cir. 1991); United States v. Rochester, 898 F.2d 

971, 976 n.1 (5th Cir. 1990). 

Montgomery, however, has not shown that the district court abused its 

discretion in denying a new trial, given that he was convicted pursuant to a 

guilty plea rather than by a verdict following a trial before a judge or jury. See

United States v. Lewis, 921 F.2d 563, 564 (5th Cir. 1991); Williams v. United 

States, 290 F.2d 217, 217 (5th Cir. 1961) (per curiam). The district court also 

properly refrained from construing the motion for new trial as a 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 motion because it would have been successive and unauthorized. See

United States v. Key, 205 F.3d 773, 774 (5th Cir. 2000); United States v. Hester, 

202 F.3d 266, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 32360, at *2 (5th Cir. Nov. 18, 1999) (per 

curiam) (unpublished).

The government moves to dismiss the appeal, or, alternatively, for summary affirmance, contending that Montgomery has abandoned his appeal from 

the denial of the motion to produce documents. The government urges further 

2

 Case: 14-60047 Document: 00512820491 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/30/2014
No. 14-60047

that Montgomery’s ineffective-assistance claims are unreviewable because 

they are outside the scope of the appeal and Montgomery has failed to obtain 

a certificate of appealability from the denial of a new trial. Because summary 

affirmance is not appropriate, the motion is DENIED. See United States v. 

Holy Land Found. for Relief & Dev., 445 F.3d 771, 781 (5th Cir. 2006). But 

because Montgomery is not entitled to relief, we dispense with further briefing.

AFFIRMED.

3

 Case: 14-60047 Document: 00512820491 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/30/2014