IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-30966
(Summary Calendar)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL BELL,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
(USDC No. 93-CR-30033-02)
- - - - - - - - - -
October 15, 1996
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Michael Bell appeals his conviction and sentence for
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base,
raising six points of error. Our review of the record and the
arguments and authorities convince us that no reversible error was
committed. The evidence was not insufficient. See United States
v. Laury, 49 F.3d 145, 151 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 162
(1995). There is no double jeopardy violation, as Bell concedes in
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
his reply brief. See United States v. Ursery, 116 S. Ct. 2134,
2147-49 (1996). Bell abandons the ground he raised in the
district court in his motion for a new trial in support of his
ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim. See Yohey v. Collins, 985
F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). To the extent that Bell now argues
other grounds of ineffective assistance, they may be handled
through a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding. See United States v.
Navejar, 963 F.2d 732, 735 (5th Cir. 1992). The district court did
not abuse its discretion by denying Bell’s motion for a new trial
without conducting an evidentiary hearing. See United States v.
Blackburn, 9 F.3d 353, 358 (5th Cir. 1993).
Bell has not shown that the district court abused its
discretion by admitting evidence of subsequent bad acts to show
Bell’s knowledge, modus operandi, and intent. See United States v.
Wilwright, 56 F.3d 586, 589 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct.
345 (1995). Nor has Bell shown that the district court clearly
erred by increasing his offense level by two based on his
leadership role in the conspiracy. See United States v. Sherbak,
950 F.2d 1095, 1099-1100 (5th Cir. 1992). Finally, Bell’s challenge
to the constitutionality of the applicable statutes’ and sentencing
guidelines’ disparate treatment of cocaine base and cocaine powder
is without merit. See United States v. Flanagan, 87 F.3d 121, 123-
24 (5th Cir. 1996); see also United States v. Cherry, 50 F.3d 338,
342-44 (5th Cir. 1995).
AFFIRMED.
2