*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

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-20044

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

EDWIN RAMIREZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Texas

(H-96-CV-845)

November 12, 1997

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

PER CURIAM:*

Edwin Ramirez appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255

motion. For the reasons assigned we affirm.

Background
1

 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a), 960(b)(1)(B), and 963.

2

 In this motion Ramirez contended that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.

3 United States v. Ramirez, 71 F.3d 875 (5th Cir. 1995).

4 Although the district court addressed Ramirez’s contention, it observed that his motion

arguably should be dismissed for abuse of the writ. Because the district court, in its

discretion, considered Ramirez’s motion, we do likewise. We also note that Ramirez is not

required to obtain a certificate of appealability because his section 2255 motion was filed

before the effective date of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. Lind v.

Murphy, 117 S.Ct. 2059 (1997).

2

After pleading guilty to conspiracy to import cocaine,1 Ramirez was

sentenced to 240 months imprisonment, to be followed by five years supervised

release. He filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under

28 U.S.C. § 2255. The district court denied same,2and we affirmed.3 Ramirez

thereafter filed a second section 2255 motion, contending that the district court

should have granted a downward departure so that his sentence would have

conformed to the sentences of his codefendants and because he accepted

responsibility for his actions. He later amended his motion to assert that the district

court should have considered alternatives to incarceration.

Analysis

Ramirez’s second section 2255 motion4fails to raise cognizable

constitutional claims. In United States v. Vaughn, we held that “[r]elief under

[section 2255] is reserved for transgressions of constitutional rights and for a
5

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

6 United States v. Brown, 29 F.3d 953 (5th Cir. 1994).

7 United States v. Lghodaro, 967 F.2d 1028 (5th Cir. 1992).

8 United States v. Vaughn, 955 F.2d 367 (5th Cir. 1992).

3

narrow range of injuries that could not have been raised on direct appeal and

would, if condoned, result in a complete miscarriage of justice.”5

Ramirez maintains that he deserved a downward departure from the

sentencing guidelines range because his codefendants received lighter sentences

and because he accepted responsibility for his crime. The district court correctly

considered that it was not free to make a downward departure to achieve parity in

sentencing. We conclude that the court acted properly in sentencing Ramirez

without reference to the sentences of his codefendants.6 Whether he deserved a

downward adjustment for his acceptance of responsibility is a matter within the

district court’s discretion. Our review of that ruling is subject to an even more

deferential treatment than the clearly erroneous standard.7 Ramirez’s contention,

which raises only a question concerning the technical application of the sentencing

guidelines, does not give rise to a matter of constitutional proportions.8 Not having

shown such, and not having shown that the district court’s refusal to depart

downward would result in a complete miscarriage of justice, Ramirez’s complaint
4

is not cognizable under section 2255.

Ramirez’s second contention -- that the court did not consider alternatives

to incarceration -- was not raised on direct appeal and likewise is not cognizable

under the restricted scope of relief available undersection 2255. The district court

found Ramirez’s contentions to be frivolous. Our review of the record results in

the same conclusion -- they are devoid of merit.

The judgment appealed is AFFIRMED.