UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 96-30322
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff-Appellee
VERSUS
JIM LEWIS
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Louisiana
(95-CV-3200-G)
October 21, 1996
Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
Jim Lewis, #23220-034, appeals from the district court’s order
dismissing his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We affirm.
Lewis argues that: (1) the Government knowingly used perjured
testimony; (2) counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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.
miscalculation of his criminal history score; (3) the district
court erred in failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing; and (4)
the district court erred in finding that his contentions that the
district court erred in refusing to award a decrease for acceptance
of responsibility and in calculating his criminal history score
were procedurally barred because he failed to show cause and
prejudice for failing to raise the issues on direct appeal.
Lewis argues, for the first time on appeal, that the
Government knowingly used perjured testimony and that counsel was
ineffective for failing to object to the district court’s alleged
miscalculation of his criminal history score. We decline to review
these arguments because there is no clear error. Highlands Ins. v.
National Union Fire Ins., 27 F.3d 1027 (5th Cir. 1994) (applying
the standard of United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162-64
(5th Cir. 1994) (en banc), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 1266 (1995) to
civil cases), cert. denied 115 S. Ct. 903 (1995).
The district court did not err in refusing to conduct an
evidentiary hearing because the record is sufficient for
determination of Lewis’s contentions. See United States v.
Drummond, 910 F.2d 284, 285 (5th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S.
1104 (1991).
Lewis’s claims that the district court erred in refusing to
award a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility and in
allegedly miscalculating his criminal history score are not
cognizable in a § 2255 proceeding because the district court’s
2
application of the Sentencing Guidelines does not raise a
constitutional issue. United States v. Vaughn, 955 F.2d 367, 368
(5th Cir. 1992).
AFFIRMED.
3