IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-50909
(Summary Calendar)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MARIANO NELIS RIASCOS,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
(USDC No. W-95-CA-195)
- - - - - - - - - -
September 13, 1996
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Mariano Nelis Riascos appeals the denial of his motion for
relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Riascos contends that he was
sentenced on materially inaccurate information; that
misapplications of the sentencing guidelines are cognizable in
§ 2255 proceedings; that trial counsel was ineffective; that
appellate counsel was ineffective; and that the district court
erred by denying his motion without an evidentiary hearing.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
Riascos does not brief his inaccurate-information contention
beyond listing it and attempting to incorporate the argument in his
district-court motion. Riascos has failed to brief his contention.
Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Riascos’s
contention that guideline-application issues are cognizable in
§ 2255 proceedings is without merit. United States v. Vaughn, 955
F.2d 367, 368 (5th Cir. 1992).
Whether counsel failed to investigate Riascos’s case; failed
to explain relevant conduct or the effect of guidelines; or failed
to explain the plea agreement are factual issues. Riascos raises
those issues for the first time on appeal. He cannot demonstrate
plain error regarding those issues. Robertson v. Plano City of
Texas, 70 F.3d 21, 23 (5th Cir. 1995).
We find no error in the district court’s disposition of
Riascos’s contention that counsel was ineffective for promising him
a five-year sentence if he pleaded guilty. Accordingly, we affirm
for essentially the reasons given by the district court. See
United States v. Riascos, No. W-95-CA-159 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 1, 1995).
Riascos lays out his contentions about counsel’s alleged
ineptitude regarding the aggravating role adjustment and the amount
of drugs attributed to Riascos in conclusional fashion.
Conclusional allegations are insufficient to raise a constitutional
issue. United States v. Pineda, 988 F.2d 22, 23 (5th Cir. 1993).
Riascos does not brief his contention that counsel failed to
2
press his acceptance-of-responsibility contention on appeal beyond
merely listing the contention and directing this court to his
§ 2255 motion. Riascos has failed to brief his contention. Yohey,
985 F.2d at 224-25. Riascos’s contention that counsel was
ineffective for failing to contest his supervised release sentence
on appeal is without a factual basis; Riascos was sentenced to five
years’ supervised release, the minimum term provided in the statute
governing his conviction. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A).
Finally, the record in the district court was sufficient for
disposition of Riascos’s § 2255 motion. The district court need
not have held an evidentiary hearing on Riascos’s motion. United
States v. Drummond, 910 F.2d 284, 285 (5th Cir. 1990), cert.
denied, 498 U.S. 1104 (1991).
AFFIRMED. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a).
3