IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-21039
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RUBEN DARIO SANCHEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. CA H 95-1369
- - - - - - - - - -
September 25, 1996
Before GARWOOD, JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ruben Dario Sanchez, #60156-079, appeals from the district
court’s order denying his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct
his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Sanchez argues that
counsel was ineffective: 1) due to a conflict of interest;
2) for failing to compel the testimony of codefendants Dino and
Alberto Esguerra; 3) for failing to request the district court to
provide a “theory of defense” and elements of conspiracy
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule
47.5.4.
No. 95-21039
- 2 -
instructions to the jury; and 4) for failing to raise meritorious
issues on appeal. Sanchez argues that the district court erred
in granting the Government’s motion for summary judgment because
a genuine issue of material fact exists because the district
court failed to consider the affidavits of the codefendants which
Sanchez submitted in support of his § 2255 motion. Sanchez
argues that the district court erred in failing to conduct an
evidentiary hearing.
Sanchez failed to establish that counsel’s alleged conflict
of interest and failure to compel the testimony of the
codefendants was prejudicial. See Strickland v. Washington, 466
U.S. 668, 697 (1984). Sanchez unsuccessfully raised the issue of
ineffective assistance of counsel with respect to the jury
instructions on direct appeal. United States v. Sanchez, No. 93-
2288 at 3-5 (5th Cir. Feb. 11, 1994) (unpublished). Because this
issue was raised and disposed of on direct appeal, it cannot be
considered in Sanchez’s § 2255 motion. United States v. Kalish,
780 F.2d 506, 508 (5th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1118
(1986). Sanchez’s contention that counsel was ineffective for
failing to raise meritorious issues on appeal was not adequately
briefed and is thus deemed abandoned. See Brinkmann v. Dallas
County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
Sanchez’s argument that the district court erred in granting
summary judgment because it failed to consider the affidavits of
the codefendants is without merit. See Sanchez v. United States,
No. 95-21039
- 3 -
No. H-92-247 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 25, 1995). The district court did
not err in refusing to conduct an evidentiary hearing, because
the record is sufficient for determination of Sanchez’s
contentions. United States v. Drummond, 910 F.2d 284, 285 (5th
Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1104 (1991).
AFFIRMED.