Case Name: Randy HUGHES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J. Tim MORGAN, Warden, Winn Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-04-25
Citations: 647 F. App'x 292
Docket Number: No. 14-30078
Parties: Randy HUGHES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J. Tim MORGAN, Warden, Winn Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 647
Pages: 292–292

Head Matter:
Randy HUGHES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J. Tim MORGAN, Warden, Winn Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 14-30078
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 25, 2016.
Randy Hughes, Winnfíeld, LA, pro se.
Andrea F. Long, Assistant District Attorney, District Attorney’s Office, Gretna, LA, for Respondent-Appellee,
Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Randy Hughes, Louisiana prisoner # 117275, appeals the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application challenging his convictions for attempted distribution of cocaine and possession of cocaine, as well as his adjudication as an habitual offender and his resulting 20-year sentence. The only issue properly before this court is whether Martinez v. Ryan, — U.S.-, 132 S.Ct. 1309, 182 L.Ed.2d 272 (2012), can be applied to excuse the procedural default of Hughes's ineffective assistance of counsel claims. See Sonnier v. Johnson, 161 F.3d 941, 946 (5th Cir.1998). Pro se briefs are afforded liberal construction. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir.1993). Nevertheless, it is well settled that an appellant "abandons all issues not raised and properly presented in [his] initial brief on appeal." Banks v. Thaler, 583 F.3d 295, 329 (5th Cir.2009). Because Hughes has failed to adequately brief his argument, he has abandoned the critical issue of this appeal. Accordingly, the district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined thát this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cm. R. 47.5,4. '