Court Opinion

ID: 17708
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 07:07:11+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:56:08.227057
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
                           _____________________

                                  No. 96-10571
                                Summary Calendar
                             _____________________

                        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                         Plaintiff-Appellee,

                                       versus

                              MARIO MENDEZ, JR.,

                                             Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________

           Appeal from the United States District Court
                for the Northern District of Texas
                          (4:96-CV-108-A)
_________________________________________________________________

                                    June 9, 1999

Before POLITZ, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Mario Mendez, Jr., federal prisoner # 24717-077, appeals the

denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.              Because Mendez filed his

motion   prior   to    the     24    April   1996   effective   date   of   the

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, he is not required

to obtain a certificate of appealability.              See United States v.

Carter, 117 F.3d 262, 264 (5th Cir. 1997).

     Mendez contends that his trial counsel was ineffective:                (1)

in failing to object to the denial of an offense-level reduction

for being a minimal or minor participant; (2) in not showing a

violation of the concurrent-sentence doctrine; (3) in not obtaining

     *
      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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
recusal of the district judge; (4) in not objecting to an alleged

violation of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986); and (5) in not

objecting to a sentence enhancement for possession of a firearm.

     We have reviewed the record and Mendez’s brief, and we AFFIRM

the denial of § 2255 relief for essentially the reasons given by

the district court.     United States v. Mendez, No. 4:96-CV-108-A

(N.D. Tex. Apr. 24, 1996) (unpublished).

     The   additional   claimed   bases   for   ineffective   assistance,

raised for the first time in Mendez’s reply brief, are not properly

before this court and are not considered.        E.g., United States v.

Jackson, 50 F.3d 1335, 1340 n.7 (5th Cir. 1995) (court will not

consider issues raised for first time in reply brief).

                                                              AFFIRMED

                                  - 2 -