* L ocal rule 47.5 provides: “The publication of opinions that have no

precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles

of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profes sion.”

Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-30059

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JO ANNE CARTER,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Western District of Louisiana

(94-CV-0149 (88-CR-50034))

( October 5, 1995)

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, DUHÉ and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jo Anne Carter appeals the trial court’s rejection of her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to

correct or vacate her

sentence. She claims in her motion that she was denied the right to

appeal the revocation of her supervised probation and that her rights were violated during the

revocation proceedings. For the reasons assigned we affirm.

Background1 A notice of appeal from a revocation of supervised release must be filed

within ten days as provided by Fed.R.App.P. 4(b). U nited States v. Clark

, 51 F.3d 42 (5th

Cir. 1995).

2 In 1988 Carter was convicted on a guilty plea of making false statements on a social

security form and to concealment with intent to obtain fraudulently a social security

payment. She was sentenced to six months imprisonment on one count; imposition of

sentence was suspended on the other count and she was placed on supervised probation for

five years. As part of the conditions of probation she was to make “full restitution to the

Social Security Administration in the amount of $4677 within the first fifty (50) months of

probation.”

Supervised probation was revoked on November 19, 1992 because Carter failed to

make restitution, committed forgery in issuing checks on the account of another and in

cashing Social Security checks of others, lied to her probation officer on material matters,

and failed to maintain regular employment. She was sentenced to prison for five years. On

February 8, 1993 Carter filed a pro se letter asking permission to appeal the revocation. The

request was rejected as untimely. 1

The instant section 2255 motion followed. The district court denied relief and Carter

timely appealed contending that her constitutional rights were violated because: (1) the court

did not consider all grounds alleged by her; (2) she was wrongfully denied an appeal of the

revocation; (3) the government failed to disclose mitigating evidence; (4) she was

discriminated against by an employee of a credit union who testified against her in the

revocation proceeding; and (5) the trial judge engaged in unspecified misconduct.

Analysis

The first assertion, that the trial judge did not consider each claim alleged, is not

supported by the record. The court addressed each issue advanced.2 W hen the time for filing a notice of appeal under Fed.R.App.P. 4(b) expires

due to the ineffective assistance of defense counsel, section 2255 is the mechanism to reset the clock for late appeals. See Mack v. Smith , 659 F.2d 23 (5th Cir. 1981).

3 Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222 (5th Cir. 1993).

4 Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83 (1963).

3 There was no inappropriate denial of Carter’s right to appeal. In the district court she

attributed the failure to timely appeal to ineffectiveness of counsel. That stated a viable

claim. 2 On appeal, however, Carter makes no mention of counsel in relation to that claim

and same is taken as abandoned. 3 Without that element, this claim lacks merit. We have

before us only a failure to comply with the mandatory requisites of Rule 4(b) of the Federal

Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Carter next contends that the government failed to disclose mitigating evidence. She

now argues that the government failed to present evidence which would indicate that she was

excused from paying restitution. This purported B rady 4 claim is without merit; no favorable

evidence was withheld.

We find no issue worthy of discussion relative to the claim of discrimination by the

employee who offered relevant and material evidence in the revocation proceeding or with

respect to the general conclusionary allegation that the district court was guilty of

misconduct. The record is totally devoid of any indication of such and that allegation is

rejected outright.

AFFIRMED.