IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-60150
(Summary Calendar)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
BOBBY EARL KEYS,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
(USDC No. 3:95-CV-38-S)
- - - - - - - - - -
September 19, 1996
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Bobby Earl Keys, prisoner # 03344-043, appeals the district
court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Keys asserts as
grounds for relief the limitation of defense counsel’s summation,
the Government’s cross-examination of his alibi defense, the
violation of his speedy-trial rights, the suggestiveness of the
pretrial identification procedure, the admission of “mugshots,” the
admission of false testimony, and the denial of his right to
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
counsel during the Government’s pretrial investigation.
Keys may not obtain relief under § 2255 on his summation and
post-arrest-silence issues because he raised these issues on direct
appeal. United States v. Kalish, 780 F.2d 506, 508 (5th Cir.),
cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1118 (1986). Keys has not shown prejudice
resulting from the continuance of the trial date. United States
v. Garcia, 995 F.2d 556, 560 (5th Cir. 1993). Keys’s conclusional
allegations regarding the pretrial and in-court identification
procedures are insufficient to raise a constitutional issue, and he
has failed to show that the procedures were “impermissibly
suggestive” or led to a “substantial likelihood of
misidentification.” Koch v. Puckett, 907 F.2d 524, 530 (5th Cir.
1990); Herrera v. Collins, 904 F.2d 944, 946 (5th Cir.), cert.
denied, 498 U.S. 925 (1990).
Keys failed to demonstrate that the admission of “mugshots”
influenced the jury’s verdict. United States v. Torres-Flores, 827
F.2d 1031, 1035-39 (5th Cir. 1987). Keys failed to demonstrate
that Agent Lorrain’s testimony was false and that the Government
knew of the falsity. Blackmon v. Scott, 22 F.3d 560, 565 (5th
Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 671 (1994). A defendant has no
right to counsel at “photographic displays conducted by the
Government for the purpose of allowing a witness to attempt an
identification.” United States v. Ash, 413 U.S. 300, 321 (1973).
Keys abandoned his argument that witness Ivy presented perjured
2
testimony as well as his Brady,1 and Jenck’s Act claims. Evans v.
City of Marlin, Tex., 986 F.2d 104, 106 n.1 (5th Cir. 1993).
Keys’s motions for permission to supplement the record with
additional evidence and for the appointment of an expert at
government expense are DENIED.
Keys has failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to relief
under § 2255. Accordingly, the decision of the district court
denying § 2255 relief and dismissing his motion is AFFIRMED.
1
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
3