Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Delvin McKINNEY, a.k.a. Poochie, a.k.a. Poco, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-11-08
Citations: 495 F. App'x 988
Docket Number: No. 12-12237
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Delvin McKINNEY, a.k.a. Poochie, a.k.a. Poco, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before BARKETT, PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 495
Pages: 988–989

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Delvin McKINNEY, a.k.a. Poochie, a.k.a. Poco, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-12237
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Nov. 8, 2012.
Nicole D. Mariani, Wifredo A. Ferrer, Lisette Marie Reid, Anne Ruth Schultz, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, Julia J. Va-glienti, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fort Laud-erdale, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Delvin McKinney, Coleman, FL, pro se.
Before BARKETT, PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Delvin McKinney appeals pro se the district court's denial of his request for a "complete direct review or evidentiary hearing" based on his contention that his appellate counsel was not provided with a complete copy of his trial transcript prior to his direct appeal. McKinney contends the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion because his appellate counsel never received the transcript of the afternoon session on February 18, 2005, and McKinney had a right to a record on appeal that included a complete transcript of the trial.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying McKinney's motion. Even assuming some doubt regarding whether McKinney's counsel received a full copy of the February 18, 2005, transcript, McKinney's essential contention— that he was denied the right to effective assistance of appellate counsel because of an incomplete record — is one that must be raised in a § 2255 motion. To the extent that McKinney might seek to raise such a claim on collateral review, he has previously filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, which has been adjudicated on its merits. See McKinney v. United States, S.D. Fla. Case No. 08-cv-60300. As McKinney has not sought or obtained an order from this Court authorizing a second or successive § 2255 motion, there was no reason for the district court to hold an evidentiary hearing.
AFFIRMED.
. We review a district court's denial of a motion for evidentiary hearing for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Massey, 89 F.3d 1433, 1443 (11th Cir. 1996).